You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> on 2022/03/27 20:18:06 UTC

davautocheck failing on 1.14.x

This backport broke this script for me:

https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1899256

davautocheck.sh: Adding groups for mod_authz_svn tests
AH00526: Syntax error on line 161 of
/home/markphip/subversion-1.14.2/subversion/tests/cmdline/httpd-20220327-200833/cfg:
AuthzSVNAccessFile and AuthzSVNReposRelativeAccessFile directives are
mutually exclusive.
davautocheck.sh: Configuration file didn't pass the check, most likely
modules couldn't be loaded
HTTPD stopped.

Did another revision also need to be merged or is there just some
additional thing I am supposed to be building now?

I have attached the full httpd.conf that was generated for davautocheck

Mark

Re: davautocheck failing on 1.14.x

Posted by Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>.
Den mån 28 mars 2022 kl 12:54 skrev Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>:

> On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 5:47 PM Daniel Sahlberg
> <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oops, it turns out I fixed it in r1892121. Now nominated for backport
> (r1899265), applies cleanly in 1.14.x.
> >
> > If it is also needed in 1.10.x it must be done via a branch, it
> currently conflicts but I don't have time to look at the conflict right now.
>
> This merged cleanly for me. I suspect you did not notice the backport
> group has not been merged yet? So when I merged the entire group it
> all merged fine. I added this to the group and cast my vote.
>

You are absolutely right, I missed the other backports. When merging the
whole group everything was fine and I've run the testsuite successfully. My
vote in r1899305.

/Daniel

Re: davautocheck failing on 1.14.x

Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 5:47 PM Daniel Sahlberg
<da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Den sön 27 mars 2022 kl 22:18 skrev Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> This backport broke this script for me:
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1899256
>>
>> davautocheck.sh: Adding groups for mod_authz_svn tests
>> AH00526: Syntax error on line 161 of
>> /home/markphip/subversion-1.14.2/subversion/tests/cmdline/httpd-20220327-200833/cfg:
>> AuthzSVNAccessFile and AuthzSVNReposRelativeAccessFile directives are
>> mutually exclusive.
>> davautocheck.sh: Configuration file didn't pass the check, most likely
>> modules couldn't be loaded
>> HTTPD stopped.
>>
>> Did another revision also need to be merged or is there just some
>> additional thing I am supposed to be building now?
>
>
> Oops, it turns out I fixed it in r1892121. Now nominated for backport (r1899265), applies cleanly in 1.14.x.
>
> If it is also needed in 1.10.x it must be done via a branch, it currently conflicts but I don't have time to look at the conflict right now.

This merged cleanly for me. I suspect you did not notice the backport
group has not been merged yet? So when I merged the entire group it
all merged fine. I added this to the group and cast my vote.

I noted that stsp did not vote for r1892121 on his vote

Mark

Re: davautocheck failing on 1.14.x

Posted by Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>.
Den sön 27 mars 2022 kl 22:18 skrev Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>:

> This backport broke this script for me:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1899256
>
> davautocheck.sh: Adding groups for mod_authz_svn tests
> AH00526: Syntax error on line 161 of
>
> /home/markphip/subversion-1.14.2/subversion/tests/cmdline/httpd-20220327-200833/cfg:
> AuthzSVNAccessFile and AuthzSVNReposRelativeAccessFile directives are
> mutually exclusive.
> davautocheck.sh: Configuration file didn't pass the check, most likely
> modules couldn't be loaded
> HTTPD stopped.
>
> Did another revision also need to be merged or is there just some
> additional thing I am supposed to be building now?
>

Oops, it turns out I fixed it in r1892121. Now nominated for backport
(r1899265), applies cleanly in 1.14.x.

If it is also needed in 1.10.x it must be done via a branch, it currently
conflicts but I don't have time to look at the conflict right now.

/Daniel