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 2010/11/02 15:13:24 UTC
Head's up - T&R of 2.3.9-alpha real soon and push for GA
I plan to T&R 2.3.9-alpha within 2 weeks (not sure how much "free time"
I'll have this week @ ACNA). Ideally, my plan is to then release a beta
the start of Dec and a GA Jan of 2011.
Re: Head's up - T&R of 2.3.9-alpha real soon and push for GA
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
+1
On Nov 5, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> In fact, I hope to T&R this week... The mod_session stuff doesn't
>> seem like a blocker for an alpha (nor much different from other
>> such "blending" of OK/APR_SUCCESS, et.al. in other places)...
>
> Would you mind waiting for the reworked ap_expr parser to arrive in
> trunk? I think it should be ready in a few days.
>
Re: Head's up - T&R of 2.3.9-alpha real soon and push for GA
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> In fact, I hope to T&R this week... The mod_session stuff doesn't
> seem like a blocker for an alpha (nor much different from other
> such "blending" of OK/APR_SUCCESS, et.al. in other places)...
Would you mind waiting for the reworked ap_expr parser to arrive in
trunk? I think it should be ready in a few days.
Re: Head's up - T&R of 2.3.9-alpha real soon and push for GA
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
In fact, I hope to T&R this week... The mod_session stuff doesn't
seem like a blocker for an alpha (nor much different from other such
"blending" of OK/APR_SUCCESS, et.al. in other places)...
On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I plan to T&R 2.3.9-alpha within 2 weeks (not sure how much "free time"
> I'll have this week @ ACNA). Ideally, my plan is to then release a beta
> the start of Dec and a GA Jan of 2011.
>
Re: httpd-2.3.9-alpha test tarballs
Posted by "Gregg L. Smith" <li...@glewis.com>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Anyone opposed if I declare 2.3.9 DOA and T&R 2.3.10?
>
No objections from the noisy guy in the peanut gallery.
Gregg
Re: httpd-2.3.9-alpha test tarballs
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 11/29/2010 6:48 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Anyone opposed if I declare 2.3.9 DOA and T&R 2.3.10?
>
> On Nov 23, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Pre-test tarballs of httpd-2.3.9-alpha are available at:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jim/httpd-2.3.9-alpha/
>>
>> Please try 'em out and I'll make them official test tarballs...
No objection here, but if you give me till late this evening, I'll also
check that the build is clean, first. Sorry, been 'away' on holiday
for the great turkey slaughter.
RE: httpd-2.3.9-alpha test tarballs
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Montag, 29. November 2010 13:49
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: httpd-2.3.9-alpha test tarballs
>
> Anyone opposed if I declare 2.3.9 DOA and T&R 2.3.10?
+1
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: httpd-2.3.9-alpha test tarballs
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 29.11.2010 13:48, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Anyone opposed if I declare 2.3.9 DOA and T&R 2.3.10?
+1 (not opposed)
Rainer
Re: httpd-2.3.9-alpha test tarballs
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Anyone opposed if I declare 2.3.9 DOA and T&R 2.3.10?
On Nov 23, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Pre-test tarballs of httpd-2.3.9-alpha are available at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jim/httpd-2.3.9-alpha/
>
> Please try 'em out and I'll make them official test tarballs...
>
Re: httpd-2.3.9-alpha test tarballs
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 11/23/2010 11:22 AM, Mario Brandt wrote:
> - 1
> doesn't build on Win 7 x64 cause libhttpd doesn't build.
I should be able to fix this later this afternoon.
> 1>------ Build started: Project: libhttpd, Configuration: Release Win32 ------
> 1>Compiling...
> 1>util_mutex.c
> 1>.\server\util_mutex.c(151) : error C2440: 'function' : cannot
> convert from 'apr_status_t (__stdcall *)(void *)' to 'apr_status_t
> (__cdecl *)(void *)'
> 1>.\server\util_mutex.c(151) : warning C4024:
> 'apr_pool_cleanup_register' : different types for formal and actual
> parameter 3
> 1>util_expr.c
> 1>c1 : fatal error C1083: Cannot open source file:
> '.\server\util_expr.c': No such file or directory
> 1>log.c
> 1>.\server\log.c(452) : error C2440: 'function' : cannot convert from
> 'apr_status_t (__stdcall *)(void *)' to 'apr_status_t (__cdecl *)(void
> *)'
> 1>.\server\log.c(452) : warning C4024: 'apr_pool_cleanup_register' :
> different types for formal and actual parameter 3
> 1>.\server\log.c(1020) : warning C4018: '>' : signed/unsigned mismatch
> 1>config.c
> 1>.\server\config.c(480) : error C2440: 'function' : cannot convert
> from 'apr_status_t (__stdcall *)(void *)' to 'apr_status_t (__cdecl
> *)(void *)'
> 1>.\server\config.c(480) : warning C4024: 'apr_pool_cleanup_register'
> : different types for formal and actual parameter 3
> 1>Generating Code...
> 1>Build log was saved at "file://c:\build\trunk\Release\BuildLog.htm"
> 1>libhttpd - 4 error(s), 4 warning(s)
> ========== Build: 4 succeeded, 1 failed, 0 up-to-date, 1 skipped ==========
>
Re: httpd-2.3.9-alpha test tarballs
Posted by Mario Brandt <jb...@gmail.com>.
- 1
doesn't build on Win 7 x64 cause libhttpd doesn't build.
Mario
1>------ Build started: Project: libhttpd, Configuration: Release Win32 ------
1>Compiling...
1>util_mutex.c
1>.\server\util_mutex.c(151) : error C2440: 'function' : cannot
convert from 'apr_status_t (__stdcall *)(void *)' to 'apr_status_t
(__cdecl *)(void *)'
1>.\server\util_mutex.c(151) : warning C4024:
'apr_pool_cleanup_register' : different types for formal and actual
parameter 3
1>util_expr.c
1>c1 : fatal error C1083: Cannot open source file:
'.\server\util_expr.c': No such file or directory
1>log.c
1>.\server\log.c(452) : error C2440: 'function' : cannot convert from
'apr_status_t (__stdcall *)(void *)' to 'apr_status_t (__cdecl *)(void
*)'
1>.\server\log.c(452) : warning C4024: 'apr_pool_cleanup_register' :
different types for formal and actual parameter 3
1>.\server\log.c(1020) : warning C4018: '>' : signed/unsigned mismatch
1>config.c
1>.\server\config.c(480) : error C2440: 'function' : cannot convert
from 'apr_status_t (__stdcall *)(void *)' to 'apr_status_t (__cdecl
*)(void *)'
1>.\server\config.c(480) : warning C4024: 'apr_pool_cleanup_register'
: different types for formal and actual parameter 3
1>Generating Code...
1>Build log was saved at "file://c:\build\trunk\Release\BuildLog.htm"
1>libhttpd - 4 error(s), 4 warning(s)
========== Build: 4 succeeded, 1 failed, 0 up-to-date, 1 skipped ==========
Re: httpd-2.3.9-alpha test tarballs
Posted by Sascha Kersken <sk...@lingoworld.de>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Pre-test tarballs of httpd-2.3.9-alpha are available at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jim/httpd-2.3.9-alpha/
>
> Please try 'em out and I'll make them official test tarballs...
Builds and runs just fine here on my Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala (32 bit
i686 machine); going to try it on my Macbook tonight.
Sascha
--
Softwareentwickler
Fachbuchautor -- u.a. "IT-Handbuch für Fachinformatiker",
http://www.galileocomputing.de/2138
httpd-2.3.9-alpha test tarballs
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Pre-test tarballs of httpd-2.3.9-alpha are available at:
http://people.apache.org/~jim/httpd-2.3.9-alpha/
Please try 'em out and I'll make them official test tarballs...
Re: Head's up - T&R of 2.3.9-alpha real soon and push for GA
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 11/23/2010 8:22 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>
>> How about this one?
>> ./modules/session/mod_sesion_crypto.c:
>>
>> #if APU_MAJOR_VERSION == 1 && APU_MINOR_VERSION < 4
>>
>> #error session_crypto_module requires APR v1.4.0 or later
>>
>> ...
>>
>> seems we cant compile this one unless we release APU 1.4.x, or?
>> and for now the -dep still contains an APU 1.3.x .... :-)
>> BTW. we also have not yet updated expat stuff in APU 1.4.x branch ...
>
> I don't see this as a regression for alpha...
It absolutely isn't. I'm entirely not satisfied that reviewers have spent
any amount of time with this major new feature in apr-util 1.4, still. That
release, when APR decides to do it, introduces a newly locked-in interface
that has to be correct from day one. Ideally, it proves correct enough to
live on as-is into APR 2.0.
An autoconf test is a trivial way to disable this module.
But this is no change from httpd 2.3.8-alpha, so we'll keep moving on :)
Re: Head's up - T&R of 2.3.9-alpha real soon and push for GA
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Nov 22, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Am 22.11.2010 13:58, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Time got away from me... Since 2.3.9 is alpha, I feel no
>> real hesitation in pushing it out this week, which is a holiday
>> week for US people...
>>
>> Plan to T&R on tues (11/23) so get your stuff in ;)
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> I plan to T&R 2.3.9-alpha within 2 weeks (not sure how much "free time"
>>> I'll have this week @ ACNA). Ideally, my plan is to then release a beta
>>> the start of Dec and a GA Jan of 2011.
> How about this one?
> ./modules/session/mod_sesion_crypto.c:
>
> #if APU_MAJOR_VERSION == 1 && APU_MINOR_VERSION < 4
>
> #error session_crypto_module requires APR v1.4.0 or later
>
> ...
>
> seems we cant compile this one unless we release APU 1.4.x, or?
> and for now the -dep still contains an APU 1.3.x .... :-)
> BTW. we also have not yet updated expat stuff in APU 1.4.x branch ...
>
I don't see this as a regression for alpha...
Re: Head's up - T&R of 2.3.9-alpha real soon and push for GA
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Am 22.11.2010 13:58, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Time got away from me... Since 2.3.9 is alpha, I feel no
> real hesitation in pushing it out this week, which is a holiday
> week for US people...
>
> Plan to T&R on tues (11/23) so get your stuff in ;)
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I plan to T&R 2.3.9-alpha within 2 weeks (not sure how much "free time"
>> I'll have this week @ ACNA). Ideally, my plan is to then release a beta
>> the start of Dec and a GA Jan of 2011.
How about this one?
./modules/session/mod_sesion_crypto.c:
#if APU_MAJOR_VERSION == 1 && APU_MINOR_VERSION < 4
#error session_crypto_module requires APR v1.4.0 or later
...
seems we cant compile this one unless we release APU 1.4.x, or?
and for now the -dep still contains an APU 1.3.x .... :-)
BTW. we also have not yet updated expat stuff in APU 1.4.x branch ...
Gün.
Re: Head's up - T&R of 2.3.9-alpha real soon and push for GA
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Greg,
Am 22.11.2010 23:59, schrieb Gregg L. Smith:
> Post r1032073, trunk has not built in Windows as suggested in the log
> for r1032073.
>
> I see util_expr.c needs to go and util_expr_*.c/h need to be added to
> the build. What baffles me is the .y & .l files. AFIAK, I have never
> built the lexical target that kicks in the custom build step using
> bison, flex & sed on these files in mod_ssl.
>
> I tried, I failed. Not sure I am on the right page, but none the less,
> this will still not build on Windows as of
>
> Revision: 1037772
> Node Kind: directory
> Schedule: normal
> Last Changed Author: fuankg
> Last Changed Rev: 1037609
> Last Changed Date: 2010-11-21 22:12:14 -0800 (Sun, 21 Nov 2010)
>
> I do not know if it matters that this version builds on Windows, but
> some of us would like it too.
sure it should build for Windows!
Since you did already the changes to the makefiles, can you please post
a unified patch, and I can just commit them.
Regarding the .y/.l files: usually it should be enough to make sure that
the .c file is newer than the .y/.l files - you can try to do that with
touch ...
So how works it for mod_ssl then for ya? or does it not?
Gün.
Re: Head's up - T&R of 2.3.9-alpha real soon and push for GA
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 11/29/2010 2:10 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It stopped my show :-)
>
> It's done, it builds (now) and I've seen it said a few times that version numbers are
> cheap. IIRC 2.3.7 got stopped for similar somewhere in the *nix world but why split hairs.
>
> The Lexical has moved from mod_ssl.dsp to libhttpd.dsp.
Thanks for the pointer, and glad that trunk is working for you! Still going over
what has moved where, and that the dependency logic is all solid :)
Re: Head's up - T&R of 2.3.9-alpha real soon and push for GA
Posted by "Gregg L. Smith" <li...@glewis.com>.
Hi,
It stopped my show :-)
It's done, it builds (now) and I've seen it said a few times that
version numbers are cheap. IIRC 2.3.7 got stopped for similar somewhere
in the *nix world but why split hairs.
The Lexical has moved from mod_ssl.dsp to libhttpd.dsp.
A big thank you to all of you!
Gregg
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 11/29/2010 1:06 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 11/22/2010 4:59 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Post r1032073, trunk has not built in Windows as suggested in the log for r1032073.
>>>
>>> I see util_expr.c needs to go and util_expr_*.c/h need to be added to the build. What
>>> baffles me is the .y & .l files. AFIAK, I have never built the lexical target that kicks
>>> in the custom build step using bison, flex & sed on these files in mod_ssl.
>>> I tried, I failed. Not sure I am on the right page, but none the less, this will still not
>>> build on Windows as of
>> The changes to the expr syntax aren't complete, I needed to update my toolchain to check
>> that the new flavor will work on win32. I can likely look at this this evening, but I
>> don't consider it a showstopper for alpha ;)
>
> Sorry, I meant changes to mod_ssl.dsp custom build steps, including file dependencies.
>
Re: Head's up - T&R of 2.3.9-alpha real soon and push for GA
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 11/29/2010 1:06 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 4:59 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Post r1032073, trunk has not built in Windows as suggested in the log for r1032073.
>>
>> I see util_expr.c needs to go and util_expr_*.c/h need to be added to the build. What
>> baffles me is the .y & .l files. AFIAK, I have never built the lexical target that kicks
>> in the custom build step using bison, flex & sed on these files in mod_ssl.
>
>> I tried, I failed. Not sure I am on the right page, but none the less, this will still not
>> build on Windows as of
>
> The changes to the expr syntax aren't complete, I needed to update my toolchain to check
> that the new flavor will work on win32. I can likely look at this this evening, but I
> don't consider it a showstopper for alpha ;)
Sorry, I meant changes to mod_ssl.dsp custom build steps, including file dependencies.
Re: Head's up - T&R of 2.3.9-alpha real soon and push for GA
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 11/22/2010 4:59 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Post r1032073, trunk has not built in Windows as suggested in the log for r1032073.
>
> I see util_expr.c needs to go and util_expr_*.c/h need to be added to the build. What
> baffles me is the .y & .l files. AFIAK, I have never built the lexical target that kicks
> in the custom build step using bison, flex & sed on these files in mod_ssl.
> I tried, I failed. Not sure I am on the right page, but none the less, this will still not
> build on Windows as of
The changes to the expr syntax aren't complete, I needed to update my toolchain to check
that the new flavor will work on win32. I can likely look at this this evening, but I
don't consider it a showstopper for alpha ;)
Re: Head's up - T&R of 2.3.9-alpha real soon and push for GA
Posted by "Gregg L. Smith" <li...@glewis.com>.
Hello,
Post r1032073, trunk has not built in Windows as suggested in the log
for r1032073.
I see util_expr.c needs to go and util_expr_*.c/h need to be added to
the build. What baffles me is the .y & .l files. AFIAK, I have never
built the lexical target that kicks in the custom build step using
bison, flex & sed on these files in mod_ssl.
I tried, I failed. Not sure I am on the right page, but none the less,
this will still not build on Windows as of
Revision: 1037772
Node Kind: directory
Schedule: normal
Last Changed Author: fuankg
Last Changed Rev: 1037609
Last Changed Date: 2010-11-21 22:12:14 -0800 (Sun, 21 Nov 2010)
I do not know if it matters that this version builds on Windows, but
some of us would like it too.
Regards,
Gregg
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Time got away from me... Since 2.3.9 is alpha, I feel no
> real hesitation in pushing it out this week, which is a holiday
> week for US people...
>
> Plan to T&R on tues (11/23) so get your stuff in ;)
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I plan to T&R 2.3.9-alpha within 2 weeks (not sure how much "free time"
>> I'll have this week @ ACNA). Ideally, my plan is to then release a beta
>> the start of Dec and a GA Jan of 2011.
>>
>
>
Re: Head's up - T&R of 2.3.9-alpha real soon and push for GA
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Time got away from me... Since 2.3.9 is alpha, I feel no
real hesitation in pushing it out this week, which is a holiday
week for US people...
Plan to T&R on tues (11/23) so get your stuff in ;)
On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I plan to T&R 2.3.9-alpha within 2 weeks (not sure how much "free time"
> I'll have this week @ ACNA). Ideally, my plan is to then release a beta
> the start of Dec and a GA Jan of 2011.
>