You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2001/02/19 14:54:19 UTC
1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
at the usual place: dev.apache.org/dist
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"Casanova will have many weapons; To beat him you will
have to have more than forks and flatulence."
Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
From: "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 7:54 AM
> at the usual place: dev.apache.org/dist
... along with the apache_1.3.18.zip ... for those of you on cr/lf insistent
file systems like Win32 or Netware.
Bill
Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
+1 on BSDi 4.1
> at the usual place: dev.apache.org/dist
Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:33:01PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> If this requires we dump 1.3.18 and put out 1.3.19 then so be it.
> The comment "almost as if there is a drive to call it "done"
> despite the problem" I will ignore, since it's definately
> not the case.
Sorry! No slight intended! But I couldn't tell if people were really looking
into it. All that I saw were a bunch of of +1 messages on shipping it. There
were a couple mentions about the tmpnam stuff. But other than Martin's query
about the compile warning, there wasn't a peep.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
From: "Greg Stein" <gs...@lyra.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 5:43 PM
> That's my worry. And with a last-minute change, we have no feedback on the problem.
>
> I'd like to see the change removed, a release made, then put the thing back
> in (and I'd say with a pstrdup). We can then add your W2K shutdown stuff.
Too late (sorry I wasn't following email for the last 30 minutes.)
Yes - pstrdup it was - this patch is applied. I agree that was enough to throw the
release, and since we agree on that, I'm nixing the release of 1.3.18 on that possible
bug. Granted, we don't _know_ that it would have caused problems, but it would have
been near impossible for the perl/jserv folks or whomever to untangle the bug if they
ever hit it.
I have the fix for Win2K shutdown. It was _very_ broken. It is quite fixed, and
the patch is applied to CVS. It _needs_ thorough testing ... could someones on the
respective php/jserv/perl module lists ask folks to bring down the current CVS tree
for testing (or wait a little bit till we have a tarball?) I'll be happy to throw
out a 1.3.19-dev .zip file if that helps as well.
> I don't know... it just doesn't feel right to have this change go in at the
> 11th hour like that. Whether we keep it in or not, a better comfort factor
> would be nice. If we wait a week for the W2K fix, fine. But that one just
> bugs me a bit. It really would be nice to reach the point where 1.3 is a
> known quantity and can hang for a long while.
Fine, then let's drop the idea of releasing in the next 72 hours. Test, test, test.
And then we can move ahead with, as someone (you?) pointed out,
"We consider Apache [version] to be the best version of Apache available..."
The bug that was being addressed was worthy of a fix, and if we sneak the fix of the
fix in before we attempt to release, I will feel much more comfortable than if we
roll them all back.
Bill
Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:22:58AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> From: "Greg Stein" <gs...@lyra.org>
>...
> > Our past few releases have had little niggly problems here and there. Every
> > one of them. It would be nice to get a release that can just sit out there
> > for six months. I have a bad feeling that this may be an indicator that
> > we're going to have to release another.
>
> I agree with near all of what you said - until you got to this statement. In the
> intervening months between Feb when I jumped on board, and October, there was a
> single release in those 8 months. Which means ... the server was stable?
> Not on your life. We simply didn't 'have it together' - or were lacking motivation
> to roll a release. Look at the bugfix list for 1.3.13/14 - it is far, far too long.
>
> Please suggest we hold to correct this issue. Please don't suggest that starving off
> the pipe of valid corrections for six months is healthy.
Eh? I'm not sure how you got this out of my statement. I said "let's deal
with this problem so we don't have to release again in two weeks when we
find this last-minute change bunged things up."
I'd like to *hope* we can have a release that lasts for six months.
Certainly, I'm not saying we should prevent new releases for that time.
> > Can we slow down and examine the issue?
>
> I don't have any objection if you want to call for a new tarball and to dump
> 1.3.18. I can imagine some third party module that wouldn't expect us to have
> manipulated the source string as we have done.
Right. That's my worry. And with a last-minute change, we have no feedback
on the problem.
I'd like to see the change removed, a release made, then put the thing back
in (and I'd say with a pstrdup). We can then add your W2K shutdown stuff.
I don't know... it just doesn't feel right to have this change go in at the
11th hour like that. Whether we keep it in or not, a better comfort factor
would be nice. If we wait a week for the W2K fix, fine. But that one just
bugs me a bit. It really would be nice to reach the point where 1.3 is a
known quantity and can hang for a long while.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
From: "Greg Stein" <gs...@lyra.org>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Cc: <ji...@jaguNET.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:35:03PM -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> > > at the usual place: dev.apache.org/dist
> >
> > looks good on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE.
> >
> > got a warning though:
> >
> > http_vhost.c: In function `fix_hostname':
> > http_vhost.c:712: warning: passing arg 1 of `ap_unescape_url' discards qualifiers from pointer target type
>
> Euh... shouldn't we have that looked at? This was caused by a last-minute
> checkin by Dean. Martin already pointed it out on the list, and a couple
> people have mentioned the compiler problem. However, it seems like nobody is
> actually talking about it. Almost as if there is a drive to call it "done"
> despite the problem.
Agreed... those of us bashing on 1.3 to improve it's stability are very excited
to get the fix-of-the-fix-of-the-fix to mod_rewrite out the door. Perhaps too
excited - although I did point out this error earlier.
> Our past few releases have had little niggly problems here and there. Every
> one of them. It would be nice to get a release that can just sit out there
> for six months. I have a bad feeling that this may be an indicator that
> we're going to have to release another.
I agree with near all of what you said - until you got to this statement. In the
intervening months between Feb when I jumped on board, and October, there was a
single release in those 8 months. Which means ... the server was stable?
Not on your life. We simply didn't 'have it together' - or were lacking motivation
to roll a release. Look at the bugfix list for 1.3.13/14 - it is far, far too long.
Please suggest we hold to correct this issue. Please don't suggest that starving off
the pipe of valid corrections for six months is healthy.
> Can we slow down and examine the issue?
I don't have any objection if you want to call for a new tarball and to dump
1.3.18. I can imagine some third party module that wouldn't expect us to have
manipulated the source string as we have done.
Bill
Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:35:03PM -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > at the usual place: dev.apache.org/dist
>
> looks good on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE.
>
> got a warning though:
>
> http_vhost.c: In function `fix_hostname':
> http_vhost.c:712: warning: passing arg 1 of `ap_unescape_url' discards qualifiers from pointer target type
Euh... shouldn't we have that looked at? This was caused by a last-minute
checkin by Dean. Martin already pointed it out on the list, and a couple
people have mentioned the compiler problem. However, it seems like nobody is
actually talking about it. Almost as if there is a drive to call it "done"
despite the problem.
Our past few releases have had little niggly problems here and there. Every
one of them. It would be nice to get a release that can just sit out there
for six months. I have a bad feeling that this may be an indicator that
we're going to have to release another.
Can we slow down and examine the issue?
>From what I can see, it is changing r->hostname in place. r->hostname is
hopefully allocated by us, so it is (technically) safe to change. It might
be a bit safer to strdup before changing, though. Otherwise, we end up
propagating the change back into (say) the r->headers_in table. That is
certainly a bit different than what happened before. Can we be sure of the
fallout? What if somebody looked at the headers, rather than r->hostname?
For example, how about CGI and the HTTP_HOST environ variable? It might now
have an unescaped hostname. All those CGI scripts that expect it to be
unescaped will see something else.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Posted by Ask Bjoern Hansen <as...@valueclick.com>.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> at the usual place: dev.apache.org/dist
looks good on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE.
got a warning though:
http_vhost.c: In function `fix_hostname':
http_vhost.c:712: warning: passing arg 1 of `ap_unescape_url' discards qualifiers from pointer target type
(plus the tmpnam() warnings).
- ask
--
ask bjoern hansen - <http://ask.netcetera.dk/>
more than 70M impressions per day, <http://valueclick.com>
Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Posted by Brian Havard <br...@kheldar.apana.org.au>.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:20:01 +0000 (GMT), James A. Sutherland wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Havard wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:10:12 +0000 (GMT), James A. Sutherland wrote:
>>
>> >If I'm lucky, I might be able to get my hands on a copy of OS/2 tomorrow
>> >and try building on that...
>>
>> I've just done a successful build on OS/2 & am uploading a binary now.
>> Of course I'd love for someone else to give it some testing :)
>
>The only version I have here ATM is 1.2; somehow I doubt Apache would work
>well on that... What are the minimum requirements software-wise for OS/2
>ATM?
Well, it has to be 32 bit which means 2.0+ & TCP/IP is required which was
only included in v3+ (I think there was an add on package for 2.0). v1.2
would be around 10 years old and ran on 286's. Even v3 is over 5 years old
now.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| Brian Havard | "He is not the messiah! |
| brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au | He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Posted by "James A. Sutherland" <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Havard wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:10:12 +0000 (GMT), James A. Sutherland wrote:
>
> >If I'm lucky, I might be able to get my hands on a copy of OS/2 tomorrow
> >and try building on that...
>
> I've just done a successful build on OS/2 & am uploading a binary now.
> Of course I'd love for someone else to give it some testing :)
The only version I have here ATM is 1.2; somehow I doubt Apache would work
well on that... What are the minimum requirements software-wise for OS/2
ATM?
James.
Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Posted by Brian Havard <br...@kheldar.apana.org.au>.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:10:12 +0000 (GMT), James A. Sutherland wrote:
>If I'm lucky, I might be able to get my hands on a copy of OS/2 tomorrow
>and try building on that...
I've just done a successful build on OS/2 & am uploading a binary now.
Of course I'd love for someone else to give it some testing :)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| Brian Havard | "He is not the messiah! |
| brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au | He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Posted by "James A. Sutherland" <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, James A. Sutherland wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Dale Ghent wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, James A. Sutherland wrote:
> > | On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > |
> > | > at the usual place: dev.apache.org/dist
> > |
> > | Built & running fine on Linux - two warnings about using "tmpnam()",
> > | though. htpasswd.c and htdigest.c, IIRC. Any reason not to use mkstemp()
> > | instead where possible??
> >
> > Built and running fine on Solaris 7, with DSO, --enable-module=most, and
> > USE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT
> >
> > I did not see the tmpnam() warnings mentioned on the Linux build.
>
> I was using --enable-module=all --enable-shared=max on Linux/x86, FWIW.
> I'm running a build on Solaris 8 ATM, but won't be able to test on that
> machine.
OK, Solaris 8 (on Sparc) just built OK.
There's a single warning I saw on Linux/x86 as well:
http_vhost.c:712: warning: passing arg 1 of `ap_unescape_url' discards
qualifier from pointer target type
Apart from that, the build was fine.
If I'm lucky, I might be able to get my hands on a copy of OS/2 tomorrow
and try building on that...
James.
Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Posted by "James A. Sutherland" <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Dale Ghent wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, James A. Sutherland wrote:
>
> | On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> |
> | > at the usual place: dev.apache.org/dist
> |
> | Built & running fine on Linux - two warnings about using "tmpnam()",
> | though. htpasswd.c and htdigest.c, IIRC. Any reason not to use mkstemp()
> | instead where possible??
>
> Built and running fine on Solaris 7, with DSO, --enable-module=most, and
> USE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT
>
> I did not see the tmpnam() warnings mentioned on the Linux build.
I was using --enable-module=all --enable-shared=max on Linux/x86, FWIW.
I'm running a build on Solaris 8 ATM, but won't be able to test on that
machine.
James.
Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Posted by Dale Ghent <da...@elemental.org>.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, James A. Sutherland wrote:
| On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:
|
| > at the usual place: dev.apache.org/dist
|
| Built & running fine on Linux - two warnings about using "tmpnam()",
| though. htpasswd.c and htdigest.c, IIRC. Any reason not to use mkstemp()
| instead where possible??
Built and running fine on Solaris 7, with DSO, --enable-module=most, and
USE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT
I did not see the tmpnam() warnings mentioned on the Linux build.
/dale
Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Posted by "James A. Sutherland" <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> at the usual place: dev.apache.org/dist
Built & running fine on Linux - two warnings about using "tmpnam()",
though. htpasswd.c and htdigest.c, IIRC. Any reason not to use mkstemp()
instead where possible??
James.