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 2002/05/09 23:27:13 UTC
PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Now that N+I is winding down, I have some time available. I'd like to
propose that we T&R 1.3.25 like May 16 or so. I volunteer to be
RM. Unless I hear comments against, I'll update STATUS with the
schedule and we'll get this ball rolling.
Also, I'm also recommending that we "officially" note the 1.3 tree as
in maint.mode only...
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by Stipe Tolj <to...@wapme-systems.de>.
David Reid wrote:
>
> What about fixing build issues?
>
> ab is currently broken on non writev and non ssl platforms (though I have
> Dirk's patch applied and it correct the issue) and I have one other small
> patch I'd like to finish and then apply to allow a build for beos to
> complete...
>
> I'll hopefully get the patch done today and send it.
>
> I'm +1 on a 1.3.25 though
can we add a couple of Cygwin specific build issues too before
shooting 1.3.25?
I'll send a patch in ASAP.
Stipe
tolj@wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG
Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf
Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299
E-Mail: info@wapme-systems.de
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wapme.net - wherever you are
Re: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
What about fixing build issues?
ab is currently broken on non writev and non ssl platforms (though I have
Dirk's patch applied and it correct the issue) and I have one other small
patch I'd like to finish and then apply to allow a build for beos to
complete...
I'll hopefully get the patch done today and send it.
I'm +1 on a 1.3.25 though
david
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com>
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:27 PM
Subject: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
> Now that N+I is winding down, I have some time available. I'd like to
> propose that we T&R 1.3.25 like May 16 or so. I volunteer to be
> RM. Unless I hear comments against, I'll update STATUS with the
> schedule and we'll get this ball rolling.
>
> Also, I'm also recommending that we "officially" note the 1.3 tree as
> in maint.mode only...
> --
>
===========================================================================
> Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
> "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
> will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
>
Re: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
Do you have patches or solutions to these problems?
Obviously, it is nobody's intent to say "only with gcc". It would be quite
silly to think that's the position. But you raise a good point: we pretty
much depend on 'long long' being available nowadays. Do we have a list of
compilers that don't have it? How can we fix them?
Cheers,
-g
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 01:06:37PM +0200, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:00:42AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> >
> > Pardon? I would have thought that 2.0 is a leap forward in the portability
> > department. Care to explain?
> >
>
> Fpr example, did you ever try and build httpd-2.0 on a machine
> where the compiler does NOT support "long long" and "unsigned
> long long"?
> Apr will happily use "long double" for the int64 type, and
> "unsigned long double" (care to explain what the hell that is?!?)
> as the uint64 type. And hardwired constants (like 0x01B21DD213814000LL
> in srclib/apr/misc/unix/getuuid.c) make it impossible to provide a
> workaround.
>
> The requirement "only guaranteed to compile with gcc" _is_ a portability
> problem, and 1.3 _did_ try to provide an alternative path for older
> systems. After all, the world does not only consist of Win32 and Linux.
>
> Martin
> --
> <Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com> | Fujitsu Siemens
> Fon: +49-89-636-46021, FAX: +49-89-636-47655 | 81730 Munich, Germany
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by Martin Kraemer <Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com>.
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:00:42AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
>
> Pardon? I would have thought that 2.0 is a leap forward in the portability
> department. Care to explain?
>
Fpr example, did you ever try and build httpd-2.0 on a machine
where the compiler does NOT support "long long" and "unsigned
long long"?
Apr will happily use "long double" for the int64 type, and
"unsigned long double" (care to explain what the hell that is?!?)
as the uint64 type. And hardwired constants (like 0x01B21DD213814000LL
in srclib/apr/misc/unix/getuuid.c) make it impossible to provide a
workaround.
The requirement "only guaranteed to compile with gcc" _is_ a portability
problem, and 1.3 _did_ try to provide an alternative path for older
systems. After all, the world does not only consist of Win32 and Linux.
Martin
--
<Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com> | Fujitsu Siemens
Fon: +49-89-636-46021, FAX: +49-89-636-47655 | 81730 Munich, Germany
Re: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:28:19AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> First of all, mod_ssl isn't an external module. It is in the base
> distribution of apache 2.0.
Yes, I know that - but it has not been there for very long, and it
does not seem to get very much attention except from 2 or 3 people.
> Secondly, mod_ssl _is_ production quality.
I'm not sure that I agree - loads of fixes has gone in since 2.0.35
and both the MAJOR CHANGES and the TODO lists are rather long. It
did not get nearly enough testing before the release IMHO. And the
SSL docs need an overhaul too.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
`Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
Re: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Again, the focus is not to get 1.3.25 "out as soon as possible" but
rather make 1.3.25 as "complete and bug free" as possible, to enable
it to become the final standard for the 1.3 tree.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Michael Best wrote:
> Well mod_proxy is broken in 1.3.24 for my application,
That's a known problem and I *think* it's fixed already in 1.3.25-dev.
> And in 2.0.36 the SSL hangs once in a while, which is also bad
That should also be fixed in 2.0.37-dev, assuming it's the same problem
everybody else had with mod_ssl in 2.0.36.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by Michael Best <mb...@emergence.com>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Whoa! I didn't say "closed down" but rather held in true maint.mode.
> There's a difference! :)
>
> If there are additions/improvements/fixes that people want in the 1.3
> tree, I say *do it now*. I'd prefer holding of on 1.3.25 for a few weeks
> to make it as "perfect" as possible (and have that as our maint.mode
> release) rather that 1.3.25 closely followed by 1.3.26 and whatever.
Well mod_proxy is broken in 1.3.24 for my application, and because I was
given to believe that there were more changes than just in the module, I
have held off on using any newer code.
And in 2.0.36 the SSL hangs once in a while, which is also bad, but the
proxy works.
--
Michael Best
Systems Administrator ph 780-413-6397 x230
Emergence By Design fax 780-433-7548
Re: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
At 11:07 AM +0200 5/15/02, Mads Toftum wrote:
>On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:51:15AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> What platforms does 1.3 work on that 2.0 does not? -- justin
>
>If you think of apache2 with a couple of external modules, such as
>php, then it is sort of true that apache2 is less portable.
>Thinking of modules like php, mod_perl and mod_ssl it would be
>really nice if they were a bit closer to production quality before
>apache 1.3 was closed down. Actually waiting for something like
>more than 1/3 of the apache installations to be apache2 would be
>nice IMHO.
>
Whoa! I didn't say "closed down" but rather held in true maint.mode.
There's a difference! :)
If there are additions/improvements/fixes that people want in the 1.3
tree, I say *do it now*. I'd prefer holding of on 1.3.25 for a few weeks
to make it as "perfect" as possible (and have that as our maint.mode
release) rather that 1.3.25 closely followed by 1.3.26 and whatever.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:51:15AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > What platforms does 1.3 work on that 2.0 does not? -- justin
>
> If you think of apache2 with a couple of external modules, such as
> php, then it is sort of true that apache2 is less portable.
> Thinking of modules like php, mod_perl and mod_ssl it would be
> really nice if they were a bit closer to production quality before
> apache 1.3 was closed down.
Apache 1.3 is -not- being closed down. The pace of releases is likely to drop off as our
intent is to only issue security fixes as needed. I expect there will be other things that
creep in to cause us to do a release from time to time, like a new feature or bug fixes.
1.3 is not going away.
Bill
RE: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Mads Toftum [mailto:mads@toftum.dk]
> Sent: 15 May 2002 11:08
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:51:15AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > What platforms does 1.3 work on that 2.0 does not? -- justin
>
> If you think of apache2 with a couple of external modules, such as
> php, then it is sort of true that apache2 is less portable.
> Thinking of modules like php, mod_perl and mod_ssl it would be
> really nice if they were a bit closer to production quality before
> apache 1.3 was closed down.
First of all, mod_ssl isn't an external module. It is in the base
distribution of apache 2.0. Secondly, mod_ssl _is_ production quality.
And apache 1.3 isn't being closed down. It is merely switched to
maintenance mode. This roughly means that only security releases will
be made. New features/improvements simply won't make it to 1.3.
> Actually waiting for something like
> more than 1/3 of the apache installations to be apache2 would be
> nice IMHO.
And more time spent on apache 2.0 instead of 1.3 will help that ;)
> Mads Toftum
Sander
Re: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:51:15AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> What platforms does 1.3 work on that 2.0 does not? -- justin
If you think of apache2 with a couple of external modules, such as
php, then it is sort of true that apache2 is less portable.
Thinking of modules like php, mod_perl and mod_ssl it would be
really nice if they were a bit closer to production quality before
apache 1.3 was closed down. Actually waiting for something like
more than 1/3 of the apache installations to be apache2 would be
nice IMHO.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
`Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
Re: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 10:47:49AM +0200, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> > Also, I'm also recommending that we "officially" note the 1.3 tree as
> > in maint.mode only...
> Hmm. -.5 on this one... It's still far more portable than 2.x
What platforms does 1.3 work on that 2.0 does not? -- justin
RE: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Martin Kraemer [mailto:Martin.Kraemer@Fujitsu-Siemens.com]
> Sent: 15 May 2002 10:48
> On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 05:27:13PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Now that N+I is winding down, I have some time available. I'd like to
> > propose that we T&R 1.3.25 like May 16 or so. I volunteer to be
> > RM. Unless I hear comments against, I'll update STATUS with the
> > schedule and we'll get this ball rolling.
>
> What about the "[PATCH] 1.3: Stricter check on request_line format"
> (Message-ID: <20...@deejai2.mch.fsc.net>)
> which has been a long-standing problem ?
> Can it go in?
>
> > Also, I'm also recommending that we "officially" note the 1.3 tree as
> > in maint.mode only...
> Hmm. -.5 on this one... It's still far more portable than 2.x
Pardon? I would have thought that 2.0 is a leap forward in the portability
department. Care to explain?
> Martin
Sander
Re: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by Martin Kraemer <Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com>.
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 05:27:13PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Now that N+I is winding down, I have some time available. I'd like to
> propose that we T&R 1.3.25 like May 16 or so. I volunteer to be
> RM. Unless I hear comments against, I'll update STATUS with the
> schedule and we'll get this ball rolling.
What about the "[PATCH] 1.3: Stricter check on request_line format"
(Message-ID: <20...@deejai2.mch.fsc.net>)
which has been a long-standing problem ?
Can it go in?
> Also, I'm also recommending that we "officially" note the 1.3 tree as
> in maint.mode only...
Hmm. -.5 on this one... It's still far more portable than 2.x
Martin
--
<Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com> | Fujitsu Siemens
Fon: +49-89-636-46021, FAX: +49-89-636-47655 | 81730 Munich, Germany
RE: PROPOSAL: Release 1.3.25
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: 09 May 2002 23:27
> Now that N+I is winding down, I have some time available. I'd like to
> propose that we T&R 1.3.25 like May 16 or so. I volunteer to be
> RM. Unless I hear comments against, I'll update STATUS with the
> schedule and we'll get this ball rolling.
>
> Also, I'm also recommending that we "officially" note the 1.3 tree as
> in maint.mode only...
+1. We should also try to minimize the number of 1.3 releases with that IMO.
Sander