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 2009/07/20 22:32:50 UTC
[VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/)
[not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12.
Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs.
(it may take some time for the site to sync).
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Res <re...@ausics.net>.
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Solaris 10 (sparc)
> Ubuntu 8.10
> CentOS 4
> OS X 10.5.7
also good on Slackware 12.2
--
Res
-Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 20, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/)
> [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12.
> Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs.
>
> (it may take some time for the site to sync).
>
+1 for:
Solaris 10 (sparc)
Ubuntu 8.10
CentOS 4
OS X 10.5.7
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>.
Rainer Jung wrote:
> 5) Starting a service only works using the ApacheMonitor or the Windows
> Service Control. Using the commandline httpd.exe I can not start the
> service. The event log shows:
>
> [Sat Jul 25 15:11:03 2009] [notice] Disabled use of AcceptEx() WinSock2 API
>
> (OS 10048)Normalerweise darf jede Socketadresse (Protokoll,
> Netzwerkadresse oder Anschluss) nur jeweils einmal verwendet werden. :
> make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:8000
>
> no listening sockets available, shutting down
>
> Unable to open logs
>
> So there's a warning about using IP address or port twice. I did check,
> that no other process uses the port and starting via ApacheMonitor with
> the same config is no problem. So I guess (wildly), that we have a bug
> when starting from the commandline, resulting in the parent and the
> child both trying to do the bind.
>
> I'll see, what I can find out about it, but I would say it's not a
> blocker, because IMHO most users do not control the service via the
> commandline interface.
>
Hmmm... We do.
--
Jess Holle
Re: [FINAL] Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Once all syncs, I'll refresh the main site and announce...
On Jul 27, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Jim Jagielski<ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> All looks good! Plenty of both binding and non-binding
>> +1s and not a -1 to be found.
>>
>> I will start the process of releasing 2.2.12!
>>
>
> I have upgraded www.apache.org to 2.2.12, yell if you see anything
> odd :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
>
Re: [FINAL] Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org>.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Jim Jagielski<ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> All looks good! Plenty of both binding and non-binding
> +1s and not a -1 to be found.
>
> I will start the process of releasing 2.2.12!
>
I have upgraded www.apache.org to 2.2.12, yell if you see anything odd :)
Thanks,
Paul
Re: [FINAL] Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Jim,
Jim Jagielski schrieb:
> *Still* waiting for the sync between people and www....
> httpd.apache.org hasn't slurped up the updates yet (eg: index.html)
the announcement at:
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/Announcement2.2.html
reads:
...
A condensed list, CHANGES_2.2.12 provides the complete list of changes
since 2.2.10.
while:
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/CHANGES_2.2.12
seems to list only the changes since 2.2.11 ...
Also there appears another 'in the previous 2.2.10 and earlier releases'
in Announcement2.2.html.
Gün.
Re: [FINAL] Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
*Still* waiting for the sync between people and www....
httpd.apache.org hasn't slurped up the updates yet (eg: index.html)
On Jul 27, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> All looks good! Plenty of both binding and non-binding
> +1s and not a -1 to be found.
>
> I will start the process of releasing 2.2.12!
>
[FINAL] Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
All looks good! Plenty of both binding and non-binding
+1s and not a -1 to be found.
I will start the process of releasing 2.2.12!
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Res <re...@ausics.net>.
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> LOL - that's terrific ... May seems like a year ago already. Has it been
> that long since 2.2.11 shipped? We really aught to get our act together
December it was, release often is pointless unless it has serious security
major exploit bug fixes, or a seriously new universally wanted feature.
Release often projects tend to need 15 times more bug fixes because release
often, far far far more often than not, means not enough QC and careless
coding.
--
Res
-Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 26.07.2009 09:54, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> It doesn't matter whether I use "|" or the new "||". It doesn't matter
>>> whether I use rotatelogs in ErrorLog or CustomLog or both.
>> Note that || and |$ have not yet been backported.
>
> It was done with the following backport:
>
> r777193 | jim | 2009-05-21 19:31:52 +0200 (Thu, 21. May 2009) | 10 lines
>
> and is also documented in the 2.2.12 changed I also tested it successfuly ;)
LOL - that's terrific ... May seems like a year ago already. Has it been
that long since 2.2.11 shipped? We really aught to get our act together
with the whole "release early, release often" mantra, or we'll prove Roy
right that progress is absent :)
>>> Can you please try once with rotatelogs?
>> Thanks for the tremendously detailed description :) Will work from this.
>
> Thanks. I'll test on some other Windows system (Win 2K3).
>
> The patch I mentioned does fix it on my machine and makes the code path
> used by "httpd -k start" quite a bit more simple.
>
> Important: It's not a regression, so I'm still +1 for the release.
Agreed, I'm simply trying to understand how you are seeing things that
I don't (or at least, hadn't) :)
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 26.07.2009 09:54, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> It doesn't matter whether I use "|" or the new "||". It doesn't matter
>> whether I use rotatelogs in ErrorLog or CustomLog or both.
>
> Note that || and |$ have not yet been backported.
It was done with the following backport:
r777193 | jim | 2009-05-21 19:31:52 +0200 (Thu, 21. May 2009) | 10 lines
and is also documented in the 2.2.12 changed I also tested it successfuly ;)
>> Can you please try once with rotatelogs?
>
> Thanks for the tremendously detailed description :) Will work from this.
Thanks. I'll test on some other Windows system (Win 2K3).
The patch I mentioned does fix it on my machine and makes the code path
used by "httpd -k start" quite a bit more simple.
Important: It's not a regression, so I'm still +1 for the release.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Rainer Jung wrote:
>> You -do- understand that the service control manager can be very poor
>> at completing a service removal until the next reboot? There are lots
>> of interesting delays to uninstalling. I presume you -k stop'ed first.
>> It has bitten me more than once.
>
> Yes, and since I'm a Unix guy, I do a lot of checking process table and
> netstat even on Windows.
That isn't what I was saying. In many cases win32 does not remove the
various service registry (or memory-persistent) details of a previously
existing service until after reboot. I wasn't really addressing any
running services. Another example of Win32 bogosity is the necessity
to reboot for a service to pick up global envvar changes.
> Now the new thing: as I reported before, I was testing rotatelogs, but
> then when you asked about peculiarities I forgot to mention rotatelogs.
>
> And yes: as soon as I throw out rotatelogs, the problem disappears. When
> I add rotatelogs I can reproduce the problem.
Very interesting, I will try to create a repro case.
> It doesn't matter whether I use "|" or the new "||". It doesn't matter
> whether I use rotatelogs in ErrorLog or CustomLog or both.
Note that || and |$ have not yet been backported.
> rotatelogs itself works fine (when starting as a commandline process, or
> as a service via ApacheMonitor).
>
> I added a sleep in winnt_post_config() in the part
>
> if (!strcasecmp(signal_arg, "start")) {
> ...
> }
>
> directly after the closing of the listener sockets and before calling
> mpm_service_start(ptemp, inst_argc, inst_argv).
>
> If I include rotatelogs in the config, then the httpd commandline
> process doing the start has one rotatelogs child at that point in time,
> and ProcessExplorer tells me, that the httpd commandline process still
> has the socket on LISTEN. netstat -ano shows the same result.
>
> I checked the return code of apr_socket_close() which is done directly
> before, but it is APR_SUCCESS. So slowly I'm running out of ideas, why
> the socket doesn't get closed before starting the service.
>
> As soon as I through rotatelogs out of the config, the socket gets
> closed and thus the service can start.
>
> I wonder, whether the socket gets inherited by rotatelogs and thus
> closing it in the commandline httpd can not effectively close it. But
> this is just a wild guess, and it doesn't go well with ProcessExplorer
> and netstat both showing the LISTEN owned by httpd, not by rotatelogs.
>
> Can you please try once with rotatelogs?
Thanks for the tremendously detailed description :) Will work from this.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Possible patch would be moving the "start" handling from post config to
pre config. That way everything gets easier (we are not establishing
listeners and shut them down again shortly after, not establishing
rotatelogs etc.).
Patch against 2.2 head at
http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-service-start.patch or here:
Index: mpm_winnt.c
===================================================================
--- mpm_winnt.c (Revision 797857)
+++ mpm_winnt.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -1452,6 +1452,13 @@
apr_cpystrn(ap_coredump_dir, ap_server_root, sizeof(ap_coredump_dir));
+ if (!strcasecmp(signal_arg, "start")) {
+ apr_status_t rv = 0;
+ rv = mpm_service_start(ptemp, inst_argc, inst_argv);
+ apr_terminate();
+ exit (rv);
+ }
+
return OK;
}
@@ -1494,20 +1501,6 @@
exit(0);
}
- if (!strcasecmp(signal_arg, "start")) {
- ap_listen_rec *lr;
-
- /* Close the listening sockets. */
- for (lr = ap_listeners; lr; lr = lr->next) {
- apr_socket_close(lr->sd);
- lr->active = 0;
- }
- rv = mpm_service_start(ptemp, inst_argc, inst_argv);
- apr_pool_destroy(s->process->pool);
- apr_terminate();
- exit (rv);
- }
-
if (!strcasecmp(signal_arg, "restart")) {
mpm_signal_service(ptemp, 1);
apr_pool_destroy(s->process->pool);
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 26.07.2009 00:41, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Now the new thing: as I reported before, I was testing rotatelogs, but
> then when you asked about peculiarities I forgot to mention rotatelogs.
>
> And yes: as soon as I throw out rotatelogs, the problem disappears. When
> I add rotatelogs I can reproduce the problem.
... and it's not a regression. I tested with 2.2.8 and 2.2.11 and both
show the same problem.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Still not a complete solution to the puzzle, but some more findings below.
On 25.07.2009 20:55, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Rainer Jung wrote:
>> On 25.07.2009 18:36, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> Rainer Jung wrote:
>>>> On 25.07.2009 16:05, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>>>> 5) Starting a service only works using the ApacheMonitor or the Windows
>>>>> Service Control. Using the commandline httpd.exe I can not start the
>>>>> service. The event log shows:
>>>>>
>>>>> [Sat Jul 25 15:11:03 2009] [notice] Disabled use of AcceptEx() WinSock2 API
>>>>>
>>>>> (OS 10048)Normalerweise darf jede Socketadresse (Protokoll,
>>>>> Netzwerkadresse oder Anschluss) nur jeweils einmal verwendet werden. :
>>>>> make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:8000
>>>>>
>>>>> no listening sockets available, shutting down
>>>>>
>>>>> Unable to open logs
>>>>>
>>>>> So there's a warning about using IP address or port twice. I did check,
>>>>> that no other process uses the port and starting via ApacheMonitor with
>>>>> the same config is no problem. So I guess (wildly), that we have a bug
>>>>> when starting from the commandline, resulting in the parent and the
>>>>> child both trying to do the bind.
>>>> Additional logging shows: the commandline process sets up the listeners
>>>> for itself, and also the service when it tries to start.
>>> Interesting because I see no similar fault (using 2.2.13-dev and will
>>> retest with 2.2.12). How are you invoking httpd.exe? What additional
>>> modules had you loaded? (Perhaps one also creates listening sockets?)
>>> If you simplify your config to apache httpd shipped modules, is all
>>> well again?
>> httpd -k uninstall
>> httpd -k install
>> httpd -k start
>
> You -do- understand that the service control manager can be very poor
> at completing a service removal until the next reboot? There are lots
> of interesting delays to uninstalling. I presume you -k stop'ed first.
> It has bitten me more than once.
Yes, and since I'm a Unix guy, I do a lot of checking process table and
netstat even on Windows.
> Maybe your "shut down now" comment is a really brilliant idea :)
>
>> httpd -k install myserv
>> httpd -k start myserv
>
> I hope you mean -n in there ... Cut and paste would give me more
> confidence in helping you debug instead of chasing ghosts :)
Sorry, yes "-n myserv".
>> Default config except for the disabled acceptex and non-standard port
>> 8000. No 3rd-party modules.
>
> I disabled acceptex, as you had (standard port though) on a guess that
> it might be the difference. I never use the mode and deleted it already
> from trunk.
I tried without Win32DisableAcceptEx. No difference. I need
Win32DisableAcceptEx, because otherwise restarts do not work. There is
an open GZ about that, but that's a different story.
Now the new thing: as I reported before, I was testing rotatelogs, but
then when you asked about peculiarities I forgot to mention rotatelogs.
And yes: as soon as I throw out rotatelogs, the problem disappears. When
I add rotatelogs I can reproduce the problem.
It doesn't matter whether I use "|" or the new "||". It doesn't matter
whether I use rotatelogs in ErrorLog or CustomLog or both.
rotatelogs itself works fine (when starting as a commandline process, or
as a service via ApacheMonitor).
I added a sleep in winnt_post_config() in the part
if (!strcasecmp(signal_arg, "start")) {
...
}
directly after the closing of the listener sockets and before calling
mpm_service_start(ptemp, inst_argc, inst_argv).
If I include rotatelogs in the config, then the httpd commandline
process doing the start has one rotatelogs child at that point in time,
and ProcessExplorer tells me, that the httpd commandline process still
has the socket on LISTEN. netstat -ano shows the same result.
I checked the return code of apr_socket_close() which is done directly
before, but it is APR_SUCCESS. So slowly I'm running out of ideas, why
the socket doesn't get closed before starting the service.
As soon as I through rotatelogs out of the config, the socket gets
closed and thus the service can start.
I wonder, whether the socket gets inherited by rotatelogs and thus
closing it in the commandline httpd can not effectively close it. But
this is just a wild guess, and it doesn't go well with ProcessExplorer
and netstat both showing the LISTEN owned by httpd, not by rotatelogs.
Can you please try once with rotatelogs?
Thanks!
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 25.07.2009 18:36, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Rainer Jung wrote:
>>> On 25.07.2009 16:05, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>>> 5) Starting a service only works using the ApacheMonitor or the Windows
>>>> Service Control. Using the commandline httpd.exe I can not start the
>>>> service. The event log shows:
>>>>
>>>> [Sat Jul 25 15:11:03 2009] [notice] Disabled use of AcceptEx() WinSock2 API
>>>>
>>>> (OS 10048)Normalerweise darf jede Socketadresse (Protokoll,
>>>> Netzwerkadresse oder Anschluss) nur jeweils einmal verwendet werden. :
>>>> make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:8000
>>>>
>>>> no listening sockets available, shutting down
>>>>
>>>> Unable to open logs
>>>>
>>>> So there's a warning about using IP address or port twice. I did check,
>>>> that no other process uses the port and starting via ApacheMonitor with
>>>> the same config is no problem. So I guess (wildly), that we have a bug
>>>> when starting from the commandline, resulting in the parent and the
>>>> child both trying to do the bind.
>>> Additional logging shows: the commandline process sets up the listeners
>>> for itself, and also the service when it tries to start.
>> Interesting because I see no similar fault (using 2.2.13-dev and will
>> retest with 2.2.12). How are you invoking httpd.exe? What additional
>> modules had you loaded? (Perhaps one also creates listening sockets?)
>> If you simplify your config to apache httpd shipped modules, is all
>> well again?
>
> httpd -k uninstall
> httpd -k install
> httpd -k start
You -do- understand that the service control manager can be very poor
at completing a service removal until the next reboot? There are lots
of interesting delays to uninstalling. I presume you -k stop'ed first.
It has bitten me more than once.
Maybe your "shut down now" comment is a really brilliant idea :)
> httpd -k install myserv
> httpd -k start myserv
I hope you mean -n in there ... Cut and paste would give me more
confidence in helping you debug instead of chasing ghosts :)
> Default config except for the disabled acceptex and non-standard port
> 8000. No 3rd-party modules.
I disabled acceptex, as you had (standard port though) on a guess that
it might be the difference. I never use the mode and deleted it already
from trunk.
> I'll happily retest with the official windows source archive and I'm
> going to narrow it down.
>
> I saw that there's not really any difference in the winnt mpm between 11
> and 12, so I'll shut down now and come back when I really know the
> reason. The above remark about the commandline process opening the
> socket is somehow garbage. It was always like that, but the socket is
> closed again directly before invoking the service. Give me a little time
> for analysis before I broadcast more incomplete incomplete explanations.
Sure thing, will look forward to hearing whatever you discover!
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 25.07.2009 18:57, Rainer Jung wrote:
Oups:
> and 12, so I'll shut down now and come back when I really know the
shut down -> shut up
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 25.07.2009 18:36, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Rainer Jung wrote:
>> On 25.07.2009 16:05, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>> 5) Starting a service only works using the ApacheMonitor or the Windows
>>> Service Control. Using the commandline httpd.exe I can not start the
>>> service. The event log shows:
>>>
>>> [Sat Jul 25 15:11:03 2009] [notice] Disabled use of AcceptEx() WinSock2 API
>>>
>>> (OS 10048)Normalerweise darf jede Socketadresse (Protokoll,
>>> Netzwerkadresse oder Anschluss) nur jeweils einmal verwendet werden. :
>>> make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:8000
>>>
>>> no listening sockets available, shutting down
>>>
>>> Unable to open logs
>>>
>>> So there's a warning about using IP address or port twice. I did check,
>>> that no other process uses the port and starting via ApacheMonitor with
>>> the same config is no problem. So I guess (wildly), that we have a bug
>>> when starting from the commandline, resulting in the parent and the
>>> child both trying to do the bind.
>> Additional logging shows: the commandline process sets up the listeners
>> for itself, and also the service when it tries to start.
>
> Interesting because I see no similar fault (using 2.2.13-dev and will
> retest with 2.2.12). How are you invoking httpd.exe? What additional
> modules had you loaded? (Perhaps one also creates listening sockets?)
> If you simplify your config to apache httpd shipped modules, is all
> well again?
httpd -k uninstall
httpd -k install
httpd -k start
or
httpd -k install myserv
httpd -k start myserv
Default config except for the disabled acceptex and non-standard port
8000. No 3rd-party modules.
I'll happily retest with the official windows source archive and I'm
going to narrow it down.
I saw that there's not really any difference in the winnt mpm between 11
and 12, so I'll shut down now and come back when I really know the
reason. The above remark about the commandline process opening the
socket is somehow garbage. It was always like that, but the socket is
closed again directly before invoking the service. Give me a little time
for analysis before I broadcast more incomplete incomplete explanations.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 25.07.2009 16:05, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> 5) Starting a service only works using the ApacheMonitor or the Windows
>> Service Control. Using the commandline httpd.exe I can not start the
>> service. The event log shows:
>>
>> [Sat Jul 25 15:11:03 2009] [notice] Disabled use of AcceptEx() WinSock2 API
>>
>> (OS 10048)Normalerweise darf jede Socketadresse (Protokoll,
>> Netzwerkadresse oder Anschluss) nur jeweils einmal verwendet werden. :
>> make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:8000
>>
>> no listening sockets available, shutting down
>>
>> Unable to open logs
>>
>> So there's a warning about using IP address or port twice. I did check,
>> that no other process uses the port and starting via ApacheMonitor with
>> the same config is no problem. So I guess (wildly), that we have a bug
>> when starting from the commandline, resulting in the parent and the
>> child both trying to do the bind.
>
> Additional logging shows: the commandline process sets up the listeners
> for itself, and also the service when it tries to start.
Interesting because I see no similar fault (using 2.2.13-dev and will
retest with 2.2.12). How are you invoking httpd.exe? What additional
modules had you loaded? (Perhaps one also creates listening sockets?)
If you simplify your config to apache httpd shipped modules, is all
well again?
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 25.07.2009 16:05, Rainer Jung wrote:
> 5) Starting a service only works using the ApacheMonitor or the Windows
> Service Control. Using the commandline httpd.exe I can not start the
> service. The event log shows:
>
> [Sat Jul 25 15:11:03 2009] [notice] Disabled use of AcceptEx() WinSock2 API
>
> (OS 10048)Normalerweise darf jede Socketadresse (Protokoll,
> Netzwerkadresse oder Anschluss) nur jeweils einmal verwendet werden. :
> make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:8000
>
> no listening sockets available, shutting down
>
> Unable to open logs
>
> So there's a warning about using IP address or port twice. I did check,
> that no other process uses the port and starting via ApacheMonitor with
> the same config is no problem. So I guess (wildly), that we have a bug
> when starting from the commandline, resulting in the parent and the
> child both trying to do the bind.
Additional logging shows: the commandline process sets up the listeners
for itself, and also the service when it tries to start.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
I built and tested on Windows XP SP3. There's no Win source download
available at /dev/dist yet, but I did the build using the Unix sources.
It looks good in principle, so
+1
but I have some observations to remark (all tests done with
Win32DisableAcceptEx). See especially remark number 5).
1) Rotatelogs now uses cmd.exe (as expected) as an intermediate process
between httpd and rotatelogs.
2) There are still independent cmd/rotatelogs processes associated to
the parent and to the child. Each configure rotatelogs produces two
pairs of processes, cmd+rotatelogs as children of the parent and another
cmd/rotatelogs as children of the httpd child process.
3) Restarts recycle all those processes, including the ones attached to
the parent. This is true for real restarts as well as for
MaxRequestsPerChild induced ones.
4) Most of the times the restart occurs I get a "select" error message.
Here's an example:
[Sat Jul 25 15:26:07 2009] [notice] Child 5936: Process exiting because
it reached MaxRequestsPerChild. Signaling the parent to restart a new
child process.
[Sat Jul 25 15:26:07 2009] [error] (OS 10022)Ein ungültiges Argument
wurde angegeben. : Too many errors in select loop. Child process exiting.
(the German message should be something like "Invalid Argument").
[Sat Jul 25 15:26:07 2009] [notice] Apache/2.2.12 (Win32) configured --
resuming normal operations
Nevertheless the restart works.
5) Starting a service only works using the ApacheMonitor or the Windows
Service Control. Using the commandline httpd.exe I can not start the
service. The event log shows:
[Sat Jul 25 15:11:03 2009] [notice] Disabled use of AcceptEx() WinSock2 API
(OS 10048)Normalerweise darf jede Socketadresse (Protokoll,
Netzwerkadresse oder Anschluss) nur jeweils einmal verwendet werden. :
make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:8000
no listening sockets available, shutting down
Unable to open logs
So there's a warning about using IP address or port twice. I did check,
that no other process uses the port and starting via ApacheMonitor with
the same config is no problem. So I guess (wildly), that we have a bug
when starting from the commandline, resulting in the parent and the
child both trying to do the bind.
I'll see, what I can find out about it, but I would say it's not a
blocker, because IMHO most users do not control the service via the
commandline interface.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Oden Eriksson <od...@envitory.se>.
> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/)
> [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12.
> Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs.
>
> (it may take some time for the site to sync).
>
Passes all tests with latest perl-framework and with apr-1.3.7 on Mandriva
Linux.
This email has been processed by SmoothZap - www.smoothwall.net
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 20, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/)
> [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12.
> Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs.
>
> (it may take some time for the site to sync).
>
I'm going to give it another ~24hrs to allow more people to
chime in :)
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/)
>> [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12.
>> Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs.
>>
>> (it may take some time for the site to sync).
>>
>
> Hrm... Just 2 binding +1 votes, Rüdiger and myself... Can I get
> another Amen?!
>
I tested on an old Debian Sarge box. Got a bunch of failures, to be
honest, but the same failures show up in 2.2.11, so I don't see any
regression.
+1
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jul 23, 2009, at 12:57 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> And of course, -1 previously reverted; presuming you are updating the
>> apr announce and site as RM, right?
>>
>
> That's an APR question so I'm -1 on answering it here
In part... my -1 is gone here once there is something on apr.apache.org
that says it's released, so I simply asked as a reminder that httpd only
ships what APR says it shipped, IMHO :-)
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 23, 2009, at 12:57 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> And of course, -1 previously reverted; presuming you are updating the
> apr announce and site as RM, right?
>
That's an APR question so I'm -1 on answering it here
*snark* :) :)
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Hrm... Just 2 binding +1 votes, Rüdiger and myself... Can I get
> another Amen?!
Amen!
Oh - you want a vote :) Working on that right now; just getting the
most modern openssl behaving right, to export postmortem diagnostics
e.g. sensible .pdb's. So likely later today.
And of course, -1 previously reverted; presuming you are updating the
apr announce and site as RM, right?
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
Nick Kew wrote:
> Installed it on OpenSolaris, tried the test framework.
> Seems most of the latter made no attempt to run.
> I have yet to find time to investigate why - hence no
> vote yet.
>
I have the test framework running now: seems what I
had before was incomplete.
I got a bunch of failures in access.t due to running
with a hostname that's not in DNS. If I hack that
in t/modules/access.t, all is well.
That'll do, so +1.
Haven't tested other platforms: those I have at
my disposal appear already to be covered.
--
Nick Kew
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com> wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 20, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/)
>>> [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12.
>>> Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs.
>>>
>>> (it may take some time for the site to sync).
>>>
>>>
>> Hrm... Just 2 binding +1 votes, Rüdiger and myself... Can I get
>> another Amen?!
>>
>
> Installed it on OpenSolaris, tried the test framework.
> Seems most of the latter made no attempt to run.
> I have yet to find time to investigate why - hence no
> vote yet.
>
Nick, I installed a few CPAN modules to the stock Perl on OpenSolaris many
moons ago (probably just Test::Harness, URI, LWP::Protocol::https,
HTTP::DAV, and Bundle::ApacheTest) and the test framework runs pretty well,
though there are a handful of tests that fail unexpectedly.
Anyway, on OpenSolaris 2009.06 2.2.12 passes more tests than 2.2.11, and
doesn't regress any tests w.r.t. 2.2.11, so I'm as happy I can get given the
time I have available ;)
+1 for release
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/)
>> [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12.
>> Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs.
>>
>> (it may take some time for the site to sync).
>>
>
> Hrm... Just 2 binding +1 votes, Rüdiger and myself... Can I get
> another Amen?!
Installed it on OpenSolaris, tried the test framework.
Seems most of the latter made no attempt to run.
I have yet to find time to investigate why - hence no
vote yet.
--
Nick Kew
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 20, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/)
> [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12.
> Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs.
>
> (it may take some time for the site to sync).
>
Hrm... Just 2 binding +1 votes, Rüdiger and myself... Can I get
another Amen?!
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Jim Jagielski schrieb:
> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/)
> [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12.
> Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs.
>
> (it may take some time for the site to sync).
+1 for NetWare
no regressions; tested with mod_jk, Perl (CGI), PHP (mod_php), and all
served nicely.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski<ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/)
> [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12.
> Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs.
>
> (it may take some time for the site to sync).
>
+1 on AIX 6.1 with XLC.
--
Eric Covener
covener@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 20, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> On 07/20/2009 10:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/)
>> [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12.
>> Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs.
>
> Is this tarball created with APR 1.3.7 (yet unreleased)?
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
Yes. The intent is to release both at the same time.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 07/20/2009 10:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/)
> [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12.
> Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs.
Is this tarball created with APR 1.3.7 (yet unreleased)?
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On 28 Jul 2009, at 22:15, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Totally in support of STATUS for backports; this code differs
> enough that
> it's no longer a backport. The toolkit wrappers alone were
> significantly
> re-factored between these branches.
There are other proposals that are not backports. STATUS is about
review, regardless of whether a proposal is a simple backport or
bears little or no relationship with /trunk/.
I'm not objecting to the patch, I'm objecting to bypassing the
*process* that flags it up for my attention! Now it's in STATUS,
if it reaches +3 and gets backported, that''s just fine, whether
or not I've reviewed it myself by then.
--
Nick Kew
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> What's wrong with a pointer to the patch in STATUS and a vote there?
Nothing. I found it overkill for what is being accomplished here, and just
suggested the best way to get me to spend my cycles reviewing the effort.
Since now three people object to this, I'm sure Guenter will find three
reviewers anxiously awaiting his revert, his patch filed in STATUS, and
will provide three +1's (or usual commentary/improvements) in just days :)
Totally in support of STATUS for backports; this code differs enough that
it's no longer a backport. The toolkit wrappers alone were significantly
re-factored between these branches.
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 28, 2009, at 4:32 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>>>>> Guenter Knauf schrieb:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> Sander Temme schrieb:
>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against
>>>>>>>> openssl-1.0.0betaX,
>>>>>>>> as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be
>>>>>>>> cleaned.
>>>>>>> Trunk became aware of OpenSSL trunk a while ago... but I don't
>>>>>>> recall
>>>>>>> putting that up for backport. I'll do so when I have come
>>>>>>> cycles.
>>>>>> I've yesterday compiled both HEAD and 2.2.x branch with OpenSSL
>>>>>> 1.0.0
>>>>>> beta 3, and that went fine - although I have a very picky
>>>>>> compiler for
>>>>>> NetWare which normally breaks for every type mismatch ...
>>>>> whoops - I mixed up the include paths; Peter is right - seems
>>>>> that we
>>>>> need to backport these:
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=748396
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=749466
>>>> based on the above HEAD patches here's a 2.2.x branch patch:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/openssl-1.x-2.2.x.diff
>>>> please check and test if I catched all - I've tested on NetWare
>>>> with
>>>> OpenSSL 0.9.7m, 0.9.8k and 1.0.0 beta3, and that went fine.
>>>> If nobody objects I'll propose this for backport.
>>>
>>> Since 2.2.12 just shipped, I'd say apply it. It will be easier for
>>> everyone to validate from svn, no?
>>>
>>> So +1 for committing and I'll commit to helping review-after-commit.
>>
>> Huh? For 2.2??
>
> Yes. This patchwork is straightforward, it simply needs dedicated
> eyes
> to review and confirm on all platforms.
>
> But my vote alone wouldn't do it, and _that_ was the misunderstanding.
> Sorry to Guenter and others for the confusion.
>
> Seeing as there are two votes against applying before the STATUS
> juggling
> act, you would need five votes now, including Guenter's and mine, to
> actually move forward from 2.2. branch in this manner.
>
What's wrong with a pointer to the patch in STATUS and a vote there?
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>>>> Guenter Knauf schrieb:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> Sander Temme schrieb:
>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against
>>>>>>> openssl-1.0.0betaX,
>>>>>>> as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be
>>>>>>> cleaned.
>>>>>> Trunk became aware of OpenSSL trunk a while ago... but I don't recall
>>>>>> putting that up for backport. I'll do so when I have come cycles.
>>>>> I've yesterday compiled both HEAD and 2.2.x branch with OpenSSL 1.0.0
>>>>> beta 3, and that went fine - although I have a very picky compiler for
>>>>> NetWare which normally breaks for every type mismatch ...
>>>> whoops - I mixed up the include paths; Peter is right - seems that we
>>>> need to backport these:
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=748396
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=749466
>>> based on the above HEAD patches here's a 2.2.x branch patch:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/openssl-1.x-2.2.x.diff
>>> please check and test if I catched all - I've tested on NetWare with
>>> OpenSSL 0.9.7m, 0.9.8k and 1.0.0 beta3, and that went fine.
>>> If nobody objects I'll propose this for backport.
>>
>> Since 2.2.12 just shipped, I'd say apply it. It will be easier for
>> everyone to validate from svn, no?
>>
>> So +1 for committing and I'll commit to helping review-after-commit.
>
> Huh? For 2.2??
Yes. This patchwork is straightforward, it simply needs dedicated eyes
to review and confirm on all platforms.
But my vote alone wouldn't do it, and _that_ was the misunderstanding.
Sorry to Guenter and others for the confusion.
Seeing as there are two votes against applying before the STATUS juggling
act, you would need five votes now, including Guenter's and mine, to
actually move forward from 2.2. branch in this manner.
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>>> Guenter Knauf schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Sander Temme schrieb:
>>>>> On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against
>>>>>> openssl-1.0.0betaX,
>>>>>> as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be
>>>>>> cleaned.
>>>>> Trunk became aware of OpenSSL trunk a while ago... but I don't
>>>>> recall
>>>>> putting that up for backport. I'll do so when I have come cycles.
>>>> I've yesterday compiled both HEAD and 2.2.x branch with OpenSSL
>>>> 1.0.0
>>>> beta 3, and that went fine - although I have a very picky
>>>> compiler for
>>>> NetWare which normally breaks for every type mismatch ...
>>> whoops - I mixed up the include paths; Peter is right - seems that
>>> we
>>> need to backport these:
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=748396
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=749466
>> based on the above HEAD patches here's a 2.2.x branch patch:
>> http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/openssl-1.x-2.2.x.diff
>> please check and test if I catched all - I've tested on NetWare with
>> OpenSSL 0.9.7m, 0.9.8k and 1.0.0 beta3, and that went fine.
>> If nobody objects I'll propose this for backport.
>
> Since 2.2.12 just shipped, I'd say apply it. It will be easier for
> everyone to validate from svn, no?
>
> So +1 for committing and I'll commit to helping review-after-commit.
Huh? For 2.2??
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Hi Bill,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
> Since 2.2.12 just shipped, I'd say apply it. It will be easier for
> everyone to validate from svn, no?
sure; you're the director - I hear ya! :)
> So +1 for committing and I'll commit to helping review-after-commit.
done:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=798359&view=rev
will tomorrow look at testing it on Linux to see probably remaining
warnings (hopefully not).
thanks, Gün.
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> Guenter Knauf schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>> Sander Temme schrieb:
>>>> On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against
>>>>> openssl-1.0.0betaX,
>>>>> as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be cleaned.
>>>> Trunk became aware of OpenSSL trunk a while ago... but I don't recall
>>>> putting that up for backport. I'll do so when I have come cycles.
>>> I've yesterday compiled both HEAD and 2.2.x branch with OpenSSL 1.0.0
>>> beta 3, and that went fine - although I have a very picky compiler for
>>> NetWare which normally breaks for every type mismatch ...
>> whoops - I mixed up the include paths; Peter is right - seems that we
>> need to backport these:
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=748396
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=749466
> based on the above HEAD patches here's a 2.2.x branch patch:
> http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/openssl-1.x-2.2.x.diff
> please check and test if I catched all - I've tested on NetWare with
> OpenSSL 0.9.7m, 0.9.8k and 1.0.0 beta3, and that went fine.
> If nobody objects I'll propose this for backport.
Since 2.2.12 just shipped, I'd say apply it. It will be easier for
everyone to validate from svn, no?
So +1 for committing and I'll commit to helping review-after-commit.
Bill
OpenSSL 1.0.0 (was: Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs)
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
> Guenter Knauf schrieb:
>> Hi,
>> Sander Temme schrieb:
>>> On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against
>>>> openssl-1.0.0betaX,
>>>> as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be cleaned.
>>> Trunk became aware of OpenSSL trunk a while ago... but I don't recall
>>> putting that up for backport. I'll do so when I have come cycles.
>> I've yesterday compiled both HEAD and 2.2.x branch with OpenSSL 1.0.0
>> beta 3, and that went fine - although I have a very picky compiler for
>> NetWare which normally breaks for every type mismatch ...
> whoops - I mixed up the include paths; Peter is right - seems that we
> need to backport these:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=748396
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=749466
based on the above HEAD patches here's a 2.2.x branch patch:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/openssl-1.x-2.2.x.diff
please check and test if I catched all - I've tested on NetWare with
OpenSSL 0.9.7m, 0.9.8k and 1.0.0 beta3, and that went fine.
If nobody objects I'll propose this for backport.
Gün.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Guenter Knauf schrieb:
> Hi,
> Sander Temme schrieb:
>> On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote:
>>
>>> Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against
>>> openssl-1.0.0betaX,
>>> as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be cleaned.
>> Trunk became aware of OpenSSL trunk a while ago... but I don't recall
>> putting that up for backport. I'll do so when I have come cycles.
> I've yesterday compiled both HEAD and 2.2.x branch with OpenSSL 1.0.0
> beta 3, and that went fine - although I have a very picky compiler for
> NetWare which normally breaks for every type mismatch ...
whoops - I mixed up the include paths; Peter is right - seems that we
need to backport these:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=748396
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=749466
Gün.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Sander Temme schrieb:
>
> On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote:
>
>> Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against
>> openssl-1.0.0betaX,
>> as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be cleaned.
>
> Trunk became aware of OpenSSL trunk a while ago... but I don't recall
> putting that up for backport. I'll do so when I have come cycles.
I've yesterday compiled both HEAD and 2.2.x branch with OpenSSL 1.0.0
beta 3, and that went fine - although I have a very picky compiler for
NetWare which normally breaks for every type mismatch ...
Günter.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org>.
On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote:
> Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against
> openssl-1.0.0betaX,
> as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be cleaned.
Trunk became aware of OpenSSL trunk a while ago... but I don't recall
putting that up for backport. I'll do so when I have come cycles.
S.
--
Sander Temme
sctemme@apache.org
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Peter Sylvester <pe...@edelweb.fr>.
Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against openssl-1.0.0betaX,
as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be cleaned.
/PS
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 21.07.2009 20:44, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Solaris 10 (SPARC): worker, event and prefork MPM build and start up.
> Only limited test results from the framework due to incomplete
> perl framework on my machine, but no regressions noted.
> Note: On Solaris _default_ in a virtual host
> causes httpd to try resolving 255.255.255.255 which still fails.
> But maybe this is just a configuration bug on my box.
I think this lookup is expected behaviour, e.g. see
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20063
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 07/20/2009 10:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/)
> [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12.
> Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs.
>
> (it may take some time for the site to sync).
>
>
+1 on release.
- checksums and signatures ok.
- Tested on the following platforms
Solaris 8 - 9 (SPARC): worker and prefork MPM build and start up.
No testsuite due to lack of complete perl kit on my machines.
Solaris 10 (SPARC): worker, event and prefork MPM build and start up.
Only limited test results from the framework due to incomplete
perl framework on my machine, but no regressions noted.
Note: On Solaris _default_ in a virtual host
causes httpd to try resolving 255.255.255.255 which still fails.
But maybe this is just a configuration bug on my box.
RHEL4 & 5 32 / 64 Bit: All tests pass (worker, event, prefork).
SuSE 10.2 32 Bit : All tests pass (worker, event, prefork).
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Posted by Mihai Moldovanu <mi...@tfm.ro>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/)
> [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12.
> Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs.
>
> (it may take some time for the site to sync).
>
+1 for:
tfm32
tfm64
Works as exected on both versions
Regards,
Mihai Moldovanu
TFM Group Software
----------
Acest document apartine grupului de companii MPI / Pro Tv. Cu toate ca au fost luate masuri pentru a controla raspandirea virusilor, acest mesaj, impreuna cu orice atasament continut, este destinat numai pentru folosinta persoanei / persoanelor carora i se adreseaza si poate contine informatii confidentiale, care sunt supuse dreptului de autor sau constituie secret de marca. Daca nu sunteti destinatarul acestui mesaj, va notificam ca este strict interzisa orice transmitere, copiere sau distribuire a acestuia sau a oricarui atasament continut de acesta. Daca ati primit acest mesaj din greseala, va rugam sa ne anuntati imediat printr-un e-mail trimis la adresa postmaster@protv.ro
This document originates from within the MPI/Pro TV group of companies. Whilst we have taken steps to control the spread of viruses, this message together with any associated files, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or any files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us at once Mail to: postmaster@protv.ro
----------