You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2009/08/06 09:53:37 UTC
[VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Tarballs at /dev/dist/; due to the potential security impact on third
party modules, and my own personal schedule, we'll run this vote for
48 hours and see where it stands. Windows src.zip to follow shortly.
+/-1
[ ] Release httpd-2.2.13 as GA
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by Dan Poirier <po...@pobox.com>.
On 08/06/2009 03:53 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Tarballs at /dev/dist/; due to the potential security impact on third
> party modules, and my own personal schedule, we'll run this vote for
> 48 hours and see where it stands. Windows src.zip to follow shortly.
>
> +/-1
> [ +1 ] Release httpd-2.2.13 as GA
(nonbinding)
Ubuntu 9.04 i686: md5sum okay, configures and builds clean, no test
regressions
Mac OS X 10.5.7 Intel: configures and builds clean, no test regressions
--
Dan Poirier <po...@pobox.com>
"We would worry less about what others think of us if we realized how
seldom they do." -- Ethel Barrett
makefile.win DBM fix Was Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by "Gregg L. Smith" <li...@glewis.com>.
It works, finds just x and goes happily on its way past it as it should.
cd ..\dbm
for %d in ( x) do if not %d == x NMAKE -f apr_dbm_%d.mak
CFG="apr_dbm_%d - Win32 Release" RECURSE=0
C:\build\httpd-2.2.x-dev\srclib\apr-util\dbm>if not x == x NMAKE -f
apr_dbm_x.mak CFG="apr_dbm_x - Win32 Release" RECURSE=0
cd ..\..\..
cd modules\ssl
I am a bit less concerned why it worked fine before for you and not for
me since when DBD was added to the build, there was a check for an
undefined list before it would let it into the loop that was taken out
when Tom added the odbc to the build. So this obviously tripped others
before, and it has now reared it's head again but now in the DBM
section. As I look at R664253 it was you that did that ;-) most likely
just to skip going into the loop unnecessarily I guess but also it kept
this problem from showing cause I know it is not just me this is
happening to this time.
It is strange tho because at the command line it does not do this.
C:\build\httpd-2.2.x-dev> for %d in () do echo "hello world"
C:\build\httpd-2.2.x-dev>
I thought I had tried a command line build as well as IDE, I'm sure of
it. Newbies (those 'spoiled folks' who eventually do get guts and decide
to try compiling) always use the IDE so this keeps this from happening
to them if it is just an IDE problem. Oh course, on VC9 w/ just the
included Express SDK only, it'll go down before that at odbc, but so
will mod_deflate, mod_ssl and abs and I see no way around that. I'm not
a fan of downloading and installing a pretty much unneeded 1.2G of stuff
just for devenv, I just add them to the buildbin project skipping the
check cause I know support is there and it saves time. On that note, in
Windows, couldn't the odbc project be added to buildbin (or the normal
make run) instead of going out to the makefile now? not that it matters
much.
Gregg
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Gregg L. Smith wrote:
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>>> +/-1
>>>> [+1] Release httpd-2.2.13 as GA
>>> This is looking fine on windows, is up at /dev/dist as -src-win32,
>>> and binaries will follow in the morning.
>> non-binding +9/10 on Windows. Please see PR 47659 for the last 1/10.
>> This is only a build process failure due to a small oversight in the
>> makefile.
>
> I offered an alternative solution (one based on too many /bin/sh for
> loops :-) Could you test 2.2 branch or even just apr-util/1.3.x branch
> so we have this right in the next release?
>
> I'm still puzzled, since my modern cmd.exe shells never complain about
> empty for %x in () do loops.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by "Gregg L. Smith" <li...@glewis.com>.
Well, on any day I would normally say "ok, it's this quirky machine,"
but not on this. This happened to someone else as well. Both on VC6 and 9.
Modern cmd.exe shells? XP SP3 or is it Vista? This is XP SP2 I am using.
I've thought some on it as well since and I can think of possibly a
better approach, but I'm very green. I'm looking at it now, that is much
cleaner. I just learned a little more about make files, thanks.
I will give it a whirl here a little later and see how it goes or
doesn't go.
Gregg
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Gregg L. Smith wrote:
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>>> +/-1
>>>> [+1] Release httpd-2.2.13 as GA
>>> This is looking fine on windows, is up at /dev/dist as -src-win32,
>>> and binaries will follow in the morning.
>> non-binding +9/10 on Windows. Please see PR 47659 for the last 1/10.
>> This is only a build process failure due to a small oversight in the
>> makefile.
>
> I offered an alternative solution (one based on too many /bin/sh for
> loops :-) Could you test 2.2 branch or even just apr-util/1.3.x branch
> so we have this right in the next release?
>
> I'm still puzzled, since my modern cmd.exe shells never complain about
> empty for %x in () do loops.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.49/2295 - Release Date: 08/10/09 18:19:00
>
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Gregg L. Smith wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> +/-1
>>> [+1] Release httpd-2.2.13 as GA
>>
>> This is looking fine on windows, is up at /dev/dist as -src-win32,
>> and binaries will follow in the morning.
>
> non-binding +9/10 on Windows. Please see PR 47659 for the last 1/10.
> This is only a build process failure due to a small oversight in the
> makefile.
I offered an alternative solution (one based on too many /bin/sh for
loops :-) Could you test 2.2 branch or even just apr-util/1.3.x branch
so we have this right in the next release?
I'm still puzzled, since my modern cmd.exe shells never complain about
empty for %x in () do loops.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by "Gregg L. Smith" <li...@glewis.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> +/-1
>> [+1] Release httpd-2.2.13 as GA
>
> This is looking fine on windows, is up at /dev/dist as -src-win32,
> and binaries will follow in the morning.
non-binding +9/10 on Windows. Please see PR 47659 for the last 1/10.
This is only a build process failure due to a small oversight in the
makefile.
Gregg
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Bill,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
> This was a simple (irritatingly simple) issue fixed on /dev/dist/ now,
> with new 2.2.13 packages. The 2.2.12 package was not refreshed and
> has been rm'ed, but that deletion doesn't show up for a day.
>
> Looks like this is revived and ready, thanks for checking it out Guenter.
checked new apache_2.2.13-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8k.msi:
- md5 checksum ok
- asc signature ok
- runs fine on both W2KSP4 + W2K3SP2
- tested mod_jk, mod_php5 and some others of my preferred / needed mods
- tested CGI with Perl
Gün.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> this does not work with 2.2.13 msi - see snapshot (tested on W2KSP4)
>
> Interesting; will research, and with luck, repair.
This was a simple (irritatingly simple) issue fixed on /dev/dist/ now,
with new 2.2.13 packages. The 2.2.12 package was not refreshed and
has been rm'ed, but that deletion doesn't show up for a day.
Looks like this is revived and ready, thanks for checking it out Guenter.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Bill,
> William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
>> The only modulo are the binaries, if one installer works, all four should
>> be fine.
> I usually only extract the msi with:
> msiexec /a apache_2.2......
>
> this does not work with 2.2.13 msi - see snapshot (tested on W2KSP4)
Interesting; will research, and with luck, repair.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Bill,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
> The only modulo are the binaries, if one installer works, all four should
> be fine.
I usually only extract the msi with:
msiexec /a apache_2.2......
this does not work with 2.2.13 msi - see snapshot (tested on W2KSP4)
Gün.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Bill,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
>>> Windows installer test packages of 2.2.12 and .13 are in the
>>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ dir, but were created on a new machine
>>> and I'd appreciate someone validating them before we take them to the
>>> distribution directory. Thanks!
the .md5 file is in an unsual format:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/apache_2.2.13-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8k.msi.md5
this format does not work with most md5sum tools, f.e.:
http://svwe10.itex.at/downloads/w32_tools/md5sum.zip
or a GUI nice tool (works with drag&drop):
http://svwe10.itex.at/downloads/w32_tools/md5gui.zip
all these expect a format like this:
http://svwe10.itex.at/downloads/httpd-sources/apache_2.2.13-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8k.msi.md5
Gün.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Bill,
> William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
>> Windows installer test packages of 2.2.12 and .13 are in the
>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ dir, but were created on a new machine
>> and I'd appreciate someone validating them before we take them to the
>> distribution directory. Thanks!
> what sense does the 2.2.12 release make now as we have the 2.2.13
> already at hand? Dont you want to skip release of 2.2.12 completely? Or
> do you really expect problems with the new APR?
Very little, if the vote passes. But as long as I had provisioned an
IS standalone build, the work is actually trivial to do both.
The only modulo are the binaries, if one installer works, all four should
be fine.
Bill
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Bill,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
> Windows installer test packages of 2.2.12 and .13 are in the
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ dir, but were created on a new machine
> and I'd appreciate someone validating them before we take them to the
> distribution directory. Thanks!
what sense does the 2.2.12 release make now as we have the 2.2.13
already at hand? Dont you want to skip release of 2.2.12 completely? Or
do you really expect problems with the new APR?
Gün.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> +/-1
>> [+1] Release httpd-2.2.13 as GA
>
> This is looking fine on windows, is up at /dev/dist as -src-win32,
> and binaries will follow in the morning.
Windows installer test packages of 2.2.12 and .13 are in the
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ dir, but were created on a new machine
and I'd appreciate someone validating them before we take them to the
distribution directory. Thanks!
Bill
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
> +/-1
> [+1] Release httpd-2.2.13 as GA
This is looking fine on windows, is up at /dev/dist as -src-win32,
and binaries will follow in the morning.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Tarballs at /dev/dist/; due to the potential security impact on third
> party modules, and my own personal schedule, we'll run this vote for
> 48 hours and see where it stands. Windows src.zip to follow shortly.
>
> +/-1
> [ ] Release httpd-2.2.13 as GA
Waiting a day for the announcement to be broadcast while the mirrors sync.
With 5 binding +1's and two more nonbinding acks, it's a go. Of course
more feedback in the next day would be great still.
Bill
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Ruediger Pluem<rp...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 06.08.2009 09:53, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Tarballs at /dev/dist/; due to the potential security impact on third
>> party modules, and my own personal schedule, we'll run this vote for
>> 48 hours and see where it stands. Windows src.zip to follow shortly.
>>
>> +/-1
>> [ ] Release httpd-2.2.13 as GA
>>
+1, all tests passed on AIX with worker and xlc.
--
Eric Covener
covener@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.13 candidate
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 06.08.2009 09:53, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Tarballs at /dev/dist/; due to the potential security impact on third
> party modules, and my own personal schedule, we'll run this vote for
> 48 hours and see where it stands. Windows src.zip to follow shortly.
>
> +/-1
> [ ] Release httpd-2.2.13 as GA
>
>
>
+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 i
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).
SuSE 10.1 64 Bit : All tests pass (worker, event, prefork).
Regards
Rüdiger