You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> on 2018/03/10 02:49:15 UTC
[VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
tarball as 2.4.32:
[ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
[ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
[ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
md5: cddf45e036657ea209145169a554bbff *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
sha1: fc1f26a4d302639932332ea12b40de7503f8aab0 *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
sha256: 11cd0c43135ffe89706d0558abc0d19cb4a1f203e11ada52f2e1c3f790959300
*httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
> Hi, all;
>
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
> tarball as 2.4.32:
>
> [X] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
Third time is the charm :)
Built httpd-2.4.32.tar.bz2 against FC27 system packages as well as building
all dependencies from their canonical sources, including current PCRE -rc
and OpenSSL -pre2. Sigs are good. Your key is now countersigned by me.
If you wanted to distribute httpd-2.4.32-crlf.zip, it is trivial on unix to
do the svn export with --native-eol CRLF followed by zip -X -9 (ignore
unix filesystem metadata). There is nothing special that requires this
to happen on windows.
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On 10/03/2018 12:49, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
>
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate tarball as 2.4.32:
>
> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
>
> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
>
> [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
>
> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
>
> md5: cddf45e036657ea209145169a554bbff *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
>
> sha1: fc1f26a4d302639932332ea12b40de7503f8aab0 *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
>
> sha256: 11cd0c43135ffe89706d0558abc0d19cb4a1f203e11ada52f2e1c3f790959300 *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
>
> --
>
> Daniel Ruggeri
+1 Slackware built w/apr-1.6.3 apr-util-1.6.1
--
Kind Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email, including any attachments, may contain legally privileged
information, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright
protected under international law. You may not disseminate, discuss, or
reveal, any part, to anyone, without the authors express written
authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments,
immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not
waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message. Only
PDF [1] and ODF [2] documents accepted, please do not send proprietary
formatted documents
Links:
------
[1] http://www.adobe.com/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
> Hi, all;
>
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
>
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
> tarball as 2.4.32:
+1, flaky stuff failing only on AIX/xlc/ppc64 w/ LD_PRELOAD of
openssl1.1 to avoid atexit() SIGILL.
(on linux desktop, just SSL perl problems in t/ssl/varlookup.t)
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
> tarball as 2.4.32:
>
+1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
All fine (no regression) on up to date Debian's 9 (64bit), 8 (64bit)
and 7 (64bit kernel, 32bit userspace).
Thanks Daniel!
PS: Announcement2.4.* and CHANGES_2.4 need 2.4.29 => 2.4.32 update
before releasing.
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Am 14.03.2018 um 19:59 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
> On 2018-03-14 09:56, Joe Orton wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:10:20PM +0100, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>> All 280 builds succeeded.
>>
>> Geez, now I feel bad just testing one build ;) Great stuff!
>
> +1! Rainer must be a machine... or, perhaps only partially... cyborg,
> maybe?
If so, a machine using machines ...
> Regardless, I always look forward to his report on votes
... which are only as good as our unit tests. So 1000 thanks to everyone
writing them.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <dr...@primary.net>.
On 2018-03-14 09:56, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:10:20PM +0100, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> All 280 builds succeeded.
>
> Geez, now I feel bad just testing one build ;) Great stuff!
+1! Rainer must be a machine... or, perhaps only partially... cyborg,
maybe?
Regardless, I always look forward to his report on votes
> ...
>
> Regards, Joe
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Am 14.03.2018 um 16:10 schrieb Joe Orton:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:56:19PM +0000, Joe Orton wrote:
>> This looks like the failure I see when localhost resolves to both ::1
>> and 127.0.0.1, which happens with modern Fedora hosts:
>>
>> $ grep localhost /etc/hosts
>> 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.localdomain localhost4 localhost4.localdomain4
>> ::1 localhost localhost.localdomain localhost6 localhost6.localdomain6
>>
>> The fixes are on trunk and I intend to propose for backport to 2.4 after
>
> I should have been clear: these are purely ab bugs, fixes are:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/r1626956 | jkaluza | 2014-09-23 08:12:54 +0100 (Tue, 23 Sep 2014) | 3 lines
> https://svn.apache.org/r1628388 | jkaluza | 2014-09-30 11:39:41 +0100 (Tue, 30 Sep 2014) | 2 lines
Thanks for the links. I rebuild ab using these patches (the first one
needed a small context adjustment to apply cleanly) and the failures in
test 5 vanished plus all other failures for RHEL 7 and SLES 12.
On the older RHEL 6 and SLES11 I always got failures for test 1 and 3.
Running it manually I saw the error text:
"open3: close(0) failed: Bad file descriptor"
So I checked the open3 perldoc page and some usage examples and adjusted
it slightly in r1826763. At least for my platforms the test now
succeeds. I hope I didn't break it for others.
Regards and thanks for the new tests,
Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:56:19PM +0000, Joe Orton wrote:
> This looks like the failure I see when localhost resolves to both ::1
> and 127.0.0.1, which happens with modern Fedora hosts:
>
> $ grep localhost /etc/hosts
> 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.localdomain localhost4 localhost4.localdomain4
> ::1 localhost localhost.localdomain localhost6 localhost6.localdomain6
>
> The fixes are on trunk and I intend to propose for backport to 2.4 after
I should have been clear: these are purely ab bugs, fixes are:
https://svn.apache.org/r1626956 | jkaluza | 2014-09-23 08:12:54 +0100 (Tue, 23 Sep 2014) | 3 lines
https://svn.apache.org/r1628388 | jkaluza | 2014-09-30 11:39:41 +0100 (Tue, 30 Sep 2014) | 2 lines
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:10:20PM +0100, Rainer Jung wrote:
> All 280 builds succeeded.
Geez, now I feel bad just testing one build ;) Great stuff!
> The following test failures were seen:
>
> a t/ab/base.t tests 1, 3 and 5 fail always on Linux
> - # Failed test 1 in t/ab/base.t at line 29
> - # Failed test 3 in t/ab/base.t at line 35
> - # Failed test 5 in t/ab/base.t at line 39
> This might be due to differences in my Perl test environment, Solaris
> is using a cutom build 5.22.0, Linux platforms use their platform
> perl but with custom build test modules.
> The tests are new, so my guess is, this is not a regression but
> something we need to fix in the test.
This looks like the failure I see when localhost resolves to both ::1
and 127.0.0.1, which happens with modern Fedora hosts:
$ grep localhost /etc/hosts
127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.localdomain localhost4 localhost4.localdomain4
::1 localhost localhost.localdomain localhost6 localhost6.localdomain6
The fixes are on trunk and I intend to propose for backport to 2.4 after
this release. If you comment out the ::1 line in /etc/hosts it also
works. Might be some RES_OPTIONS env var hack you can use to over-ride
it, I haven't tried.
Regards, Joe
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Am 10.03.2018 um 03:49 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
> Hi, all;
>
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarball as 2.4.32:
>
> [X] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
>
> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
>
> [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
>
> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
>
> md5: cddf45e036657ea209145169a554bbff *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
>
> sha1: fc1f26a4d302639932332ea12b40de7503f8aab0 *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
>
> sha256: 11cd0c43135ffe89706d0558abc0d19cb4a1f203e11ada52f2e1c3f790959300
> *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
+1 to release and thank for RM!
Detailed report:
- Sigs and hashes OK
- contents of tarballs identical
- contents of tag and tarballs identical
except for expected deltas
- deps convenience tarball contains latest APR/APU 1.6.3/1.6.1
Built on
- Solaris 10 Sparc as 32 Bit Binaries
- SLES 11+12 (64 Bits)
- RHEL 6+7 (64 Bits)
For all platforms built
- with default (shared), static and explicit shared modules
- with module sets reallyall, all, most, few, none and default
- using --enable-load-all-modules
- against "included" APR/APU from deps tarball,
plus external APR/APU 1.6.3/1.6.1 and 1.5.2/1.5.4
- using external libraries
- expat 2.2.5
- pcre 8.41
- openssl 1.0.2n plus patches
- lua 5.3.4 (compiled with LUA_COMPAT_MODULE)
- distcache 1.5.1
- libxml2 2.9.8
- libnghttp2 1.31.0
- brotli 1.0.3
- curl 7.58.0
- jansson 2.11
- Tool chain:
- platform gcc except on Solaris
(gcc 7.3.0 Solaris 10, only older APR/APU 1.5.x compiled with
older gcc 4.9.2)
- CFLAGS: -O2 -g -Wall -fno-strict-aliasing
- on Solaris additionally -mpcu=v9, -D_XOPEN_SOURCE,
-D_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED=1, -D__EXTENSIONS__
and -D_XPG6
All 280 builds succeeded.
- compiler warnings:
- modules/core/mod_watchdog.c:436: warning: 'rv' may be used
uninitialized in this function
-> only on SLES 11, warning is correct but not critical (debug log);
not a regression
on RHEL 6 and SLES 11 due to older GCC versions:
- modules/md/md_json.c:31: warning: expected [error|warning|ignored]
after '#pragma GCC diagnostic'
- modules/md/md_json.c:45: warning: expected [error|warning|ignored]
after '#pragma GCC diagnostic'
due to strange jansson dependency library header files:
include/jansson.h:134:6: warning: 'json_decrefp' defined but not used
[-Wunused-function]
include/jansson.h:180:41: warning: 'json_error_code' defined but not
used [-Wunused-function]
include/jansson.h:228:5: warning: 'json_object_set_nocheck' defined but
not used [-Wunused-function]
include/jansson.h:234:5: warning: 'json_object_iter_set' defined but not
used [-Wunused-function]
include/jansson.h:249:5: warning: 'json_array_set' defined but not used
[-Wunused-function]
include/jansson.h:261:5: warning: 'json_array_insert' defined but not
used [-Wunused-function]
and only on Solaris (gcc 7.3.0)
- modules/ldap/util_ldap_cache_mgr.c:728:32: warning: format '%ld'
expects argument of type 'long int', but argument 6 has type 'long long
int' [-Wformat=]
- modules/ldap/util_ldap_cache.c:111:20: warning: format '%ld'
expects argument of type 'long int', but argument 8 has type 'long long
int' [-Wformat=]
- srclib/apr-util/xlate/xlate.c:120:38: warning: passing argument 2 of
'iconv' from incompatible pointer type
[-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
- srclib/apr-util/xlate/xlate.c:343:42: warning: passing argument 2 of
'iconv' from incompatible pointer type
[-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
Tested for
- Solaris 10, SLES 11+12, RHEL 6+7
- MPMs prefork, worker, event
- prefork skipped on Solaris due to the accept lock problem that
leads to timeouts and thus excessive testing times in the proxy
- default, shared and static module builds
- log levels info, debug and trace8
- module sets reallyall, all, most, few, none and default
- for "reallyall" 128 modules plus MPMs, less for other module sets
- in total 2352 combinations
The following test failures were seen:
a t/ab/base.t tests 1, 3 and 5 fail always on Linux
- # Failed test 1 in t/ab/base.t at line 29
- # Failed test 3 in t/ab/base.t at line 35
- # Failed test 5 in t/ab/base.t at line 39
This might be due to differences in my Perl test environment, Solaris
is using a cutom build 5.22.0, Linux platforms use their platform
perl but with custom build test modules.
The tests are new, so my guess is, this is not a regression but
something we need to fix in the test.
b Testing fails for module set "none" due to "User" directive
in default config:
AH00526: Syntax error on line 30 of .../t/conf/httpd.conf:
Invalid command 'User', perhaps misspelled or defined by a module not
included in the server configuration
Not a regression
c Test 59 of t/modules/include.t only and always on
Solaris.
Not a regression
Old analysis was:
This is due to a bug in the test, which uses strftime()
with a "%s" pattern that is not supported on Solaris.
Until recently the server and the test client both returned
verbatim "%s" and the test succeeded. After updating some
Perl modules for the http2 tests, the perl client even
on Solaris now supports "%s" in strftime and the test starts
to fail. It seems we have to fix the test.
d Various tests in t/apache/expr_string.t
Not a regression.
Test numbers : 6, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29
Happens for 36 out of about 2300 runs (33 times on RHEL6,
2 times on SLES11, once on Solaris).
The failure is always on line 87, where the error_log contents
are checked.
e Test 5 in t/modules/dav.t:
5 times, various platforms.
Creation, modified and now times not in the correct order.
This seems to be a system issue, all tests done on NFS,
many tested on virtualized guests.
Not a regression.
f TODO passed for:
t/apache/server_name_port.t tests 32, 35, 56, 59, 80, 83
t/modules/rewrite.t test 26
g I expect prefork on Solaris still to observe timeouts during
proxy tests like reported for previous versions, but didn't test
it this time. Old info for reference:
Not observed for static builds. Only builds based on APR/APU 1.6.x
seem to have the problem. First observed when testing 2.4.26.
It seems processes die due to Solaris mutex deadlock detection
for the accept mutex (false positive). Such processes get not
replaced until we end up with only one prefork child, which of
course can't serve proxy requests.
So no show stoppers seen here.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
+1! All good
THX!
> On Mar 9, 2018, at 9:49 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/ <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/>
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate tarball as 2.4.32:
> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
> [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
>
> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
> md5: cddf45e036657ea209145169a554bbff *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
> sha1: fc1f26a4d302639932332ea12b40de7503f8aab0 *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
> sha256: 11cd0c43135ffe89706d0558abc0d19cb4a1f203e11ada52f2e1c3f790959300 *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
>
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Gregg Smith <gl...@gknw.net>.
On 3/9/2018 6:49 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
>
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
>
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
> tarball as 2.4.32:
>
[+1]: So far, so good.
SVN export tag
Win 10 vc14 32 & 64 bit
Latest APRs
OpenSSL 1.0.2n, 1.1.0g, LibreSSL 2.6.4
Latest other module dependencies
ab works!
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <dr...@apache.org>.
On 2018/03/10 02:49:15, "Daniel Ruggeri" <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
> tarball as 2.4.32:
> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
> [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
>
> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
> md5: cddf45e036657ea209145169a554bbff *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
> sha1: fc1f26a4d302639932332ea12b40de7503f8aab0 *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
> sha256: 11cd0c43135ffe89706d0558abc0d19cb4a1f203e11ada52f2e1c3f790959300
> *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
>
>
Throwing my own vote in the ring...
[X] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
Tested with the following configuration - all libraries built from latest project releases
system:
kernel:
name: Linux
release: 3.16.0-4-amd64
version: #1 SMP Debian 3.16.39-1 (2016-12-30)
machine: x86_64
libraries:
openssl: "1.1.0g"
openldap: "2.4.45"
apr: "1.6.3"
apr-util: "1.6.1"
iconv: "1.2.2"
brotli: "1.0.2"
nghttp2: "1.30.0"
zlib: "1.2.11"
pcre: "8.41"
libxml2: "2.9.7"
php: "5.6.33"
lua: "5.3.4"
curl: "7.58.0"
--
Daniel Ruggeri
P.S.
I have spent the past 45 minutes trying to get Outlook 2016 working tolerably with our plain-text lists and have fallen back to ponymail. Alas... poor Thunderbird just doesn't work right anymore with my terrible mail provider. If anyone has a working recipe to enable inline quoting, I'd be forever grateful for the instruction. I can now *completely* relate to Bill's comments about the gmail app and the pain it brings...
</rant>
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 08:49:15PM -0600, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
>
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
> tarball as 2.4.32:
>
> [X] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
+1 for release, looks good on Fedora 27.
Thanks a lot for RMing, Daniel!
Regards, Joe
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:39 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> This looks sensible, or do we say that users of mod_proxy_balancer
>>>> on Windows should defer their upgrade? A more limited audience?
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> Should we also mention the regression against mod_security on Windows?
>> (Nobody can reproduce on Unix, correct?)
>
> This is not a regression, always been there (or almost) in 2.4.x.
Thanks for clarifying (not worthy of mention then)
>> What about the mod_md pegged infinite retry problem that was raised
>> a month or two back, particularly evident on Windows? Is the fact that
>> the module is experimental enough to evade mention in Announcement?
>
> We don't have much details on it yet, configuration issue?
I think we were waiting on json data, or Stefan has an inkling of how
we received negative delta now.
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:39 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This looks sensible, or do we say that users of mod_proxy_balancer
>>> on Windows should defer their upgrade? A more limited audience?
>>
>> +1
>
> Should we also mention the regression against mod_security on Windows?
> (Nobody can reproduce on Unix, correct?)
This is not a regression, always been there (or almost) in 2.4.x.
>
> What about the mod_md pegged infinite retry problem that was raised
> a month or two back, particularly evident on Windows? Is the fact that
> the module is experimental enough to evade mention in Announcement?
We don't have much details on it yet, configuration issue?
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This looks sensible, or do we say that users of mod_proxy_balancer
>> on Windows should defer their upgrade? A more limited audience?
>
> +1
Should we also mention the regression against mod_security on Windows?
(Nobody can reproduce on Unix, correct?)
What about the mod_md pegged infinite retry problem that was raised
a month or two back, particularly evident on Windows? Is the fact that
the module is experimental enough to evade mention in Announcement?
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
> This looks sensible, or do we say that users of mod_proxy_balancer
> on Windows should defer their upgrade? A more limited audience?
+1
RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 4:28 PM
> To: httpd <de...@httpd.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > *** Changes here
> > We consider this release to be the best version of Apache available for
> > non-Windows platforms, and encourage users of all prior versions to
> upgrade.
> >
> > Please note, a bug after shipping this release was discovered that
> prevents
> > the server from starting on Windows when mod_proxy_balancer is used.
> > This manifests in error message "AH01179: balancer slotmem_create
> failed."
> > Windows users are encouraged to postpone upgrades until the soon-to-
> be-available
> > 2.4.33+ release is made.
> > *** End Changes
>
> This looks sensible, or do we say that users of mod_proxy_balancer
> on Windows should defer their upgrade? A more limited audience?
>
Yes, definitely. Thanks for the pointer.
> > Please note that while the Apache HTTP Server Project may publish some
> > security patches to the 2.2.x flavor through at least December of 2017,
> > no further maintenance patches of 2.2.x will be considered and no further
> > releases will be distributed. The 2.2.x branch has now reached the end of
> > its maintenance, and users are strongly encouraged to promptly complete
> > their transitions to this 2.4.x flavor of httpd to benefit from security
> > and bug fixes, as well as new features.
>
> This is not current, see /repos/dist/dev/httpd/ for the current
> Announcement
> text draft, please.
Right. I'll use that one.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>
> *** Changes here
> We consider this release to be the best version of Apache available for
> non-Windows platforms, and encourage users of all prior versions to upgrade.
>
> Please note, a bug after shipping this release was discovered that prevents
> the server from starting on Windows when mod_proxy_balancer is used.
> This manifests in error message "AH01179: balancer slotmem_create failed."
> Windows users are encouraged to postpone upgrades until the soon-to-be-available
> 2.4.33+ release is made.
> *** End Changes
This looks sensible, or do we say that users of mod_proxy_balancer
on Windows should defer their upgrade? A more limited audience?
> Please note that while the Apache HTTP Server Project may publish some
> security patches to the 2.2.x flavor through at least December of 2017,
> no further maintenance patches of 2.2.x will be considered and no further
> releases will be distributed. The 2.2.x branch has now reached the end of
> its maintenance, and users are strongly encouraged to promptly complete
> their transitions to this 2.4.x flavor of httpd to benefit from security
> and bug fixes, as well as new features.
This is not current, see /repos/dist/dev/httpd/ for the current Announcement
text draft, please.
RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 12:09 PM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
>
> Am 15.03.2018 um 17:34 schrieb Yann Ylavic:
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Personally, I would like to see *another* T&R (again, I volunteer and will
> >> see it through quickly) and no mention of this release be made public via
> >> ANNOUNCE.
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> > I think we should complete this release, with a warning somewhere for
> > mod_proxy_lb users on Windows. It's mirrored already.
> > Then we can provide 2.4.33 shortly.
>
> +1 and s/mod_proxy_lb/mod_proxy_balancer/
>
> Rainer
Agreed - once the mirrors have it... it's in the wild. I've been occupied the past few hours and have been mulling over this. WDYT about this verbiage? I'm poised and ready to send this and will do so in the next few hours if no additional feedback is given.
Apache HTTP Server 2.4.32 Released
March 15, 2018
The Apache Software Foundation and the Apache HTTP Server Project
are pleased to announce the release of version 2.4.32 of the Apache
HTTP Server ("Apache"). This version of Apache is our latest GA
release of the new generation 2.4.x branch of Apache HTTPD and
represents fifteen years of innovation by the project, and is
recommended over all previous releases. This release of Apache is
a security, feature, and bug fix release.
*** Changes here
We consider this release to be the best version of Apache available for
non-Windows platforms, and encourage users of all prior versions to upgrade.
Please note, a bug after shipping this release was discovered that prevents
the server from starting on Windows when mod_proxy_balancer is used.
This manifests in error message "AH01179: balancer slotmem_create failed."
Windows users are encouraged to postpone upgrades until the soon-to-be-available
2.4.33+ release is made.
*** End Changes
Apache HTTP Server 2.4.32 is available for download from:
http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
Apache 2.4 offers numerous enhancements, improvements, and performance
boosts over the 2.2 codebase. For an overview of new features
introduced since 2.4 please see:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/new_features_2_4.html
Please see the CHANGES_2.4 file, linked from the download page, for a
full list of changes. A condensed list, CHANGES_2.4.32 includes only
those changes introduced since the prior 2.4 release. A summary of all
of the security vulnerabilities addressed in this and earlier releases
is available:
http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_24.html
This release requires the Apache Portable Runtime (APR), minimum
version 1.5.x, and APR-Util, minimum version 1.5.x. Some features may
require the 1.6.x version of both APR and APR-Util. The APR libraries
must be upgraded for all features of httpd to operate correctly.
This release builds on and extends the Apache 2.2 API. Modules written
for Apache 2.2 will need to be recompiled in order to run with Apache
2.4, and require minimal or no source code changes.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/VERSIONING
When upgrading or installing this version of Apache, please bear in mind
that if you intend to use Apache with one of the threaded MPMs (other
than the Prefork MPM), you must ensure that any modules you will be
using (and the libraries they depend on) are thread-safe.
Please note that while the Apache HTTP Server Project may publish some
security patches to the 2.2.x flavor through at least December of 2017,
no further maintenance patches of 2.2.x will be considered and no further
releases will be distributed. The 2.2.x branch has now reached the end of
its maintenance, and users are strongly encouraged to promptly complete
their transitions to this 2.4.x flavor of httpd to benefit from security
and bug fixes, as well as new features.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Am 15.03.2018 um 17:34 schrieb Yann Ylavic:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I would like to see *another* T&R (again, I volunteer and will
>> see it through quickly) and no mention of this release be made public via
>> ANNOUNCE.
>> Thoughts?
>
> I think we should complete this release, with a warning somewhere for
> mod_proxy_lb users on Windows. It's mirrored already.
> Then we can provide 2.4.33 shortly.
+1 and s/mod_proxy_lb/mod_proxy_balancer/
Rainer
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Reading backwards... +1 - deferring the announcement would be fine.
We simply can't make 2.4.32 "disappear" as unreleased.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Just because it is released, doesn't mean we need to announce it. We
> can easily release a quick 2.4.33 and announce *that*. 2.4.32 was/is
> just an un-announced release.
>
>> On Mar 15, 2018, at 2:51 PM, Christophe Jaillet <ch...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>> Le 15/03/2018 à 17:34, Yann Ylavic a écrit :
>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I would like to see *another* T&R (again, I volunteer and will
>>>> see it through quickly) and no mention of this release be made public via
>>>> ANNOUNCE.
>>>> Thoughts?
>>> I think we should complete this release, with a warning somewhere for
>>> mod_proxy_lb users on Windows. It's mirrored already.
>>> Then we can provide 2.4.33 shortly.
>>> Regards,
>>> Yann.
>>
>> +1 as well for me.
>> It's unfortunate but the release has been voted and is in the wild now.
>> The best is to mitigate the announce as proposed by Yann and release a 2.4.n+1 ASAP.
>>
>> CJ
>>
>
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <dr...@primary.net>.
On 2018-03-16 08:03, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Just because it is released, doesn't mean we need to announce it. We
> can easily release a quick 2.4.33 and announce *that*. 2.4.32 was/is
> just an un-announced release.
>
Personally, I prefer this approach. I've been holding off on sending the
announcement as noted on private@, but I think I'd sooner T&R 2.4.33 and
get ready for that one to go out.
Again, I volunteer... assuming y'all haven't come to the opinion that
I'm cursed as an RM.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Just because it is released, doesn't mean we need to announce it. We
can easily release a quick 2.4.33 and announce *that*. 2.4.32 was/is
just an un-announced release.
> On Mar 15, 2018, at 2:51 PM, Christophe Jaillet <ch...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Le 15/03/2018 à 17:34, Yann Ylavic a écrit :
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Personally, I would like to see *another* T&R (again, I volunteer and will
>>> see it through quickly) and no mention of this release be made public via
>>> ANNOUNCE.
>>> Thoughts?
>> I think we should complete this release, with a warning somewhere for
>> mod_proxy_lb users on Windows. It's mirrored already.
>> Then we can provide 2.4.33 shortly.
>> Regards,
>> Yann.
>
> +1 as well for me.
> It's unfortunate but the release has been voted and is in the wild now.
> The best is to mitigate the announce as proposed by Yann and release a 2.4.n+1 ASAP.
>
> CJ
>
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Christophe Jaillet <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 15/03/2018 à 17:34, Yann Ylavic a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I would like to see *another* T&R (again, I volunteer and will
>> see it through quickly) and no mention of this release be made public via
>> ANNOUNCE.
>> Thoughts?
>
> I think we should complete this release, with a warning somewhere for
> mod_proxy_lb users on Windows. It's mirrored already.
> Then we can provide 2.4.33 shortly.
>
>
> Regards,
> Yann.
>
+1 as well for me.
It's unfortunate but the release has been voted and is in the wild now.
The best is to mitigate the announce as proposed by Yann and release a
2.4.n+1 ASAP.
CJ
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Jan Ehrhardt <ph...@ehrhardt.nl>.
William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:17:45
-0500):
>That still leaves the headache of fallback-to-release when a candidate on
>these many projects isn't present (actually, the smart election between
>candidate and release if both exist!) But great pointer, TY!
The list of pre-installed software on Appveyor images is impressive:
https://www.appveyor.com/docs/build-environment/#pre-installed-software
At first sight omly nasm, awk and unxutils are missing. You could make
appveyor download them or just make them part of your github repo (like
https://github.com/mgreter/libsass-msi-installer/tree/master/tools )
--
Jan
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
That still leaves the headache of fallback-to-release when a candidate on
these many projects isn't present (actually, the smart election between
candidate and release if both exist!) But great pointer, TY!
On Mar 15, 2018 21:46, "Jan Ehrhardt" <ph...@ehrhardt.nl> wrote:
> William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:11:10
> -0500):
> >https://github.com/appsuite/oss-httpd-build is where this all lives, and
> is
> >where the localized PERL5LIB schema for all the components will land.
> >This can be further streamlined, and the really big caveat is that the
> gather
> >phase requires bash on Windows (SFU makes this trivial.)
>
> bash is standard installed on Appveyor images, as part of Windows GIT.
> See
> https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick-Windows/blob/master/
> CloneRepositories.cmd#L12
>
> This just executes
> https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick-Windows/blob/master/
> CloneRepositories.sh
> --
> Jan
>
>
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Jan Ehrhardt <ph...@ehrhardt.nl>.
William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:11:10
-0500):
>https://github.com/appsuite/oss-httpd-build is where this all lives, and is
>where the localized PERL5LIB schema for all the components will land.
>This can be further streamlined, and the really big caveat is that the gather
>phase requires bash on Windows (SFU makes this trivial.)
bash is standard installed on Appveyor images, as part of Windows GIT.
See
https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick-Windows/blob/master/CloneRepositories.cmd#L12
This just executes
https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick-Windows/blob/master/CloneRepositories.sh
--
Jan
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Jan Ehrhardt <ph...@ehrhardt.nl> wrote:
> William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:52:48
> -0500):
>>The largest headache is provisioning the entire suite of non-default perl
>>modules required. Running the framework is trivial. I've been working on
>>some workaround to this for unix and windows for "stock" test boxes.
>
> Any chance to make this publicly available? To give you an idea,
> ImageMagick does a fairly standard Perl install on Appveyor:
> https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick-Windows/blob/master/AppVeyor/Install.cmd#L37
> They are downloading
> https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick-Windows/releases/download/20160630/strawberry-perl-5.20.1.1-64bit.msi
Yes, but the perl logic isn't done yet. Even the OpenSSL project refused
to support RedHat/CentOS without perl-core extensions installed (or alert
to their absence.) Seems perl test logic authors are traditionally and
continuously obtuse to their test suites' pain points.
https://github.com/appsuite/oss-httpd-build is where this all lives, and is
where the localized PERL5LIB schema for all the components will land.
This can be further streamlined, and the really big caveat is that the gather
phase requires bash on Windows (SFU makes this trivial.) I've given up on
extending makefile syntax, and looking at a python (or perl) script to deal
with both the Windows native checkout, and conditional BLD=candidate
flavor, because various bits will or will not have a pending release when
combining those packages, and that's something nmake, and even gmake
won't support trivially.
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Jan Ehrhardt <ph...@ehrhardt.nl>.
William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:52:48
-0500):
>The largest headache is provisioning the entire suite of non-default perl
>modules required. Running the framework is trivial. I've been working on
>some workaround to this for unix and windows for "stock" test boxes.
Any chance to make this publicly available? To give you an idea,
ImageMagick does a fairly standard Perl install on Appveyor:
https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick-Windows/blob/master/AppVeyor/Install.cmd#L37
They are downloading
https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick-Windows/releases/download/20160630/strawberry-perl-5.20.1.1-64bit.msi
And install it, using chocolatey
https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick-Windows/blob/master/AppVeyor/Install-StrawberryPerl-x64.ps1#L1
Could something like this be extended to install the non-standard
modules as well? If this is not possible using the msi-installer, would
a self-extracting exe be another way?
>With that resolved, just about anyone in the windows community should
>easily build and test when they will, against release, candidate, snapshot
>or bleed.
--
Jan
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Jan Ehrhardt <ph...@ehrhardt.nl>.
Rainer Jung in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:15:13
+0100):
>The artefacts are on the mirrors and out in the wild, so we can not get
>them back. Best is to soon proceed with the release and document the
>mod_proxy_balancer on Windows regression in the announcement.
+1
>About "not catching ahead of time": it would be great, if at least one
>of us had a Windows system with the ability to run the test suite.
Something that crosses my mind from time to time: appveyor.com is free
for open source projects. PHP uses it for running the test suite:
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/php/php-src/build/master.build.6478/job/ios1a5p0vjuqkmik#L5609
Libexpat does the same:
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/libexpat/libexpat/build/libexpat-131
In these test they are building Debug\expatd.dll and running the tests
in Debug mode, but with some adjustments a static release\expat.lib can
also be built:
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/Jan-E/libexpat/build/libexpat-10/job/e98ai0uf5wu5vmde#L269
Complex projects with a lot of dependencies are no problem as well. See
for instance the build log of ImageMagick for Windows:
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/Jan-E/imagemagick-windows/build/job/ef3gvikn64m6ddoo?fullLog=true
In theory, httpd and all of its dependencies could be built as well on a
Appveyor virtual Windows machine. I do not have the time to do that
right now, but if anyone feels inclined...
--
Jan
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
> Am 15.03.2018 um 18:09 schrieb Eric Covener:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Jan Ehrhardt <ph...@ehrhardt.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>> Eric Covener in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:35:38
>>> -0400):
>>>>
>>>> +1, probably the least confusing, and Windows users aren't
>>>> quickly/casually picking up source releases.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm. 2.4.32 coincided with the monthly Windows Update and with a curl
>>> release. I upgraded everything yesterday...
>>
>>
>> Sorry -- I should have said "most/typical" Windows users.
>>
>> The question now is about the pro/con of completely finalizing the
>> 2.4.32 release or not -- either way even your upgrade already
>> happened.
>>
>> Of course not catching the regression ahead of time is unfortunate.
>
>
> The artefacts are on the mirrors and out in the wild, so we can not get them
> back. Best is to soon proceed with the release and document the
> mod_proxy_balancer on Windows regression in the announcement. At least the
> symptoms described here are failure during start, so the bug does not
> produce vague or rare symptoms. Any one updating and being hit by the bug
> will notice immediately.
+1 (actually, no choice to continue to "publish"; the announcement could be
held back if we were rolling and voting up a 2.4.33 release right now, but we
do not "withdraw" a published (mirrored) release.
> We can also add the patch to
> http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.4.32/ once it is done,
> just in case a 2.4.33 takes a little longer for reasons not yet known.
+1
> About "not catching ahead of time": it would be great, if at least one of us
> had a Windows system with the ability to run the test suite.
The largest headache is provisioning the entire suite of non-default perl
modules required. Running the framework is trivial. I've been working on
some workaround to this for unix and windows for "stock" test boxes.
With that resolved, just about anyone in the windows community should
easily build and test when they will, against release, candidate, snapshot
or bleed.
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Am 15.03.2018 um 18:09 schrieb Eric Covener:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Jan Ehrhardt <ph...@ehrhardt.nl> wrote:
>> Eric Covener in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:35:38
>> -0400):
>>> +1, probably the least confusing, and Windows users aren't
>>> quickly/casually picking up source releases.
>>
>> Hmm. 2.4.32 coincided with the monthly Windows Update and with a curl
>> release. I upgraded everything yesterday...
>
> Sorry -- I should have said "most/typical" Windows users.
>
> The question now is about the pro/con of completely finalizing the
> 2.4.32 release or not -- either way even your upgrade already
> happened.
>
> Of course not catching the regression ahead of time is unfortunate.
The artefacts are on the mirrors and out in the wild, so we can not get
them back. Best is to soon proceed with the release and document the
mod_proxy_balancer on Windows regression in the announcement. At least
the symptoms described here are failure during start, so the bug does
not produce vague or rare symptoms. Any one updating and being hit by
the bug will notice immediately.
We can also add the patch to
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.4.32/ once it is
done, just in case a 2.4.33 takes a little longer for reasons not yet known.
About "not catching ahead of time": it would be great, if at least one
of us had a Windows system with the ability to run the test suite.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Jan Ehrhardt <ph...@ehrhardt.nl> wrote:
> Eric Covener in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:35:38
> -0400):
>>+1, probably the least confusing, and Windows users aren't
>>quickly/casually picking up source releases.
>
> Hmm. 2.4.32 coincided with the monthly Windows Update and with a curl
> release. I upgraded everything yesterday...
Sorry -- I should have said "most/typical" Windows users.
The question now is about the pro/con of completely finalizing the
2.4.32 release or not -- either way even your upgrade already
happened.
Of course not catching the regression ahead of time is unfortunate.
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Jan Ehrhardt <ph...@ehrhardt.nl> wrote:
> Eric Covener in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:35:38
> -0400):
>>+1, probably the least confusing, and Windows users aren't
>>quickly/casually picking up source releases.
>
> Hmm. 2.4.32 coincided with the monthly Windows Update and with a curl
> release. I upgraded everything yesterday...
There is no (known) issue if mod_proxy_loadbalancer is not involved, is it?
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Jan Ehrhardt <ph...@ehrhardt.nl>.
Eric Covener in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:35:38
-0400):
>+1, probably the least confusing, and Windows users aren't
>quickly/casually picking up source releases.
Hmm. 2.4.32 coincided with the monthly Windows Update and with a curl
release. I upgraded everything yesterday...
--
Jan
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I would like to see *another* T&R (again, I volunteer and will
>> see it through quickly) and no mention of this release be made public via
>> ANNOUNCE.
>> Thoughts?
>
> I think we should complete this release, with a warning somewhere for
> mod_proxy_lb users on Windows. It's mirrored already.
> Then we can provide 2.4.33 shortly.
+1, probably the least confusing, and Windows users aren't
quickly/casually picking up source releases.
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>
> Personally, I would like to see *another* T&R (again, I volunteer and will
> see it through quickly) and no mention of this release be made public via
> ANNOUNCE.
> Thoughts?
I think we should complete this release, with a warning somewhere for
mod_proxy_lb users on Windows. It's mirrored already.
Then we can provide 2.4.33 shortly.
Regards,
Yann.
RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Ruggeri <dr...@apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:00 PM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
>
> Hi, all;
>
> On 2018/03/10 02:49:15, "Daniel Ruggeri" <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
> > Hi, all;
> >
> > Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> >
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
> >
> >
> >
> > I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate
> > tarball as 2.4.32:
> >
> > [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
> >
> > [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
> >
> > [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> > The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
> >
> > md5: cddf45e036657ea209145169a554bbff *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
> >
> > sha1: fc1f26a4d302639932332ea12b40de7503f8aab0 *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
> >
> > sha256:
> 11cd0c43135ffe89706d0558abc0d19cb4a1f203e11ada52f2e1c3f790959300
> > *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Daniel Ruggeri
>
> I am pleased to report that the vote for releasing httpd-2.4.32 has
PASSED
> with five binding +1 votes. I will continue with the process to release
and
> distribute the tarball. Bear with me as I learn through the procedure :-)
>
> I do know that Announcement2.4.* and CHANGES_2.4 also require updates -
> feel free to point out anything missing.
>
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
Well, this is an interesting predicament indeed. A release has passed, but a
regression was found after the fact...
I volunteer to T&R 2.4.33 as soon as we're able to resolve this regression,
but in any event, I am not comfortable sending the announcement that this
represents the latest and best version at this point - especially given that
we appear to have a patch for testing:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/adc854d8b395367ede75f327c1324c088d00701
33d0c7f6931822d0e@%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E
So... that leaves me wondering how we would treat this. By now, most of the
mirrors should have caught up with the new version, announcement text and
CHANGES*. I did not update the CURRENT-IS-xxxx pointer yet, though. How do
we treat this version in STATUS - as in... at what point does a release
become a release? When it gets the votes? When it's pushed to dist/release?
When the announcement is made?
Personally, I would like to see *another* T&R (again, I volunteer and will
see it through quickly) and no mention of this release be made public via
ANNOUNCE.
Thoughts?
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Exonetric <ma...@exonetric.com>.
Hi
> On 13 Mar 2018, at 16:59, Daniel Ruggeri <dr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
>
>> On 2018/03/10 02:49:15, "Daniel Ruggeri" <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>> Hi, all;
>>
>> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
>> tarball as 2.4.32:
>>
>> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
>>
>> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
>>
>> [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
>>
>> md5: cddf45e036657ea209145169a554bbff *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
>>
>> sha1: fc1f26a4d302639932332ea12b40de7503f8aab0 *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
>>
>> sha256: 11cd0c43135ffe89706d0558abc0d19cb4a1f203e11ada52f2e1c3f790959300
>> *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Daniel Ruggeri
>
> I am pleased to report that the vote for releasing httpd-2.4.32 has PASSED with five binding +1 votes. I will continue with the process to release and distribute the tarball. Bear with me as I learn through the procedure :-)
>
> I do know that Announcement2.4.* and CHANGES_2.4 also require updates - feel free to point out anything missing.
Is it safe to assume this will be announced today or tomorrow, 15/16 March?
Cheers
Mark
[RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.32
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <dr...@apache.org>.
Hi, all;
On 2018/03/10 02:49:15, "Daniel Ruggeri" <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
> Hi, all;
>
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
>
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
> tarball as 2.4.32:
>
> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
>
> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
>
> [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
>
>
>
> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
>
> md5: cddf45e036657ea209145169a554bbff *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
>
> sha1: fc1f26a4d302639932332ea12b40de7503f8aab0 *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
>
> sha256: 11cd0c43135ffe89706d0558abc0d19cb4a1f203e11ada52f2e1c3f790959300
> *httpd-2.4.32.tar.gz
>
>
>
> --
>
> Daniel Ruggeri
I am pleased to report that the vote for releasing httpd-2.4.32 has PASSED with five binding +1 votes. I will continue with the process to release and distribute the tarball. Bear with me as I learn through the procedure :-)
I do know that Announcement2.4.* and CHANGES_2.4 also require updates - feel free to point out anything missing.
--
Daniel Ruggeri