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 2012/01/22 15:53:13 UTC
[RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
I am rescinding the vote for 2.4.0. Instead, on Monday (or
Tuesday at the latest) I will T&R 2.4.1.
I will keep these test tarballs around so that Windows
users have access to them in case any win users or devs
have the time or talents to address the open issues.
On Jan 16, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The 2.4.0 (prerelease) tarballs are available for download and test:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.0 GA.
>
> Vote will last the normal 72 hours... Can I get a w00t w00t!
>
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Sunday 29 January 2012, Michael Felt wrote:
> Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with
> a known bug (core issue), but would still be nice to have a
> 2.4.0/2.4.1 "something" to test-build with (for AIX).
>
> In other words, in the /dev/dist directory I only find the 2.2.22
> images.
I have restored the 2.4.0 tarballs for now
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 1/30/2012 7:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2012, at 8:22 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 13:19 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/29/2012 4:21 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
>>>> Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with a known bug (core
>>>> issue), but would still be nice to have a 2.4.0/2.4.1 "something" to test-build with (for
>>>> AIX).
>>>
>>> The right answer would be to have snapshots to share, but AFAIK we no
>>> longer create them?
>>
>> I think if it was, then more testing could be done and the debacle of 2.4.0 _might_ not have happened
>>
>
> If people didn't test formally announced *betas*, I have significant
> doubts that they would test snapshots.
>
> But that's just imo.
Agreed. However, some person just asked and we had none, so don't be
all too pessimistic :)
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jan 31, 2012, at 11:59 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 1/31/2012 8:50 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We don't release 'snapshots'...
>>>
>>> That doesn't mean early adopters don't seek out version control or
>>> snapshots of the current state of software. I'm pretty sure you've
>>> lived on the bleeding edge of one system package or another.
>>
>> Yep... It's called either 'svn update' or 'git pull' :)
>
> Which... doesn't correspond to a tarball. We have autobuilds working
> in several places now, how difficult might it be to tar up a snapshot
> during the post-buildconf phase of such a CI build?
>
You mentioned 'seek out version control or snapshots'... I simply
replied that we do provide what they seek.
Again, I don't like the idea of snapshots: they are too easy
to abuse and if the whole reason behind it is to "encourage"
easier testing, then I would say that recent history indicates
otherwise. We had several formally announced betas which were
otherwise ignored, so expecting un-announced snapshots which
carry no mark of stability *at all* to somehow change that seem
ludicrous. People don't test betas but they will test snapshots?
I just don't see it.
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 1/31/2012 8:50 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> We don't release 'snapshots'...
>>
>> That doesn't mean early adopters don't seek out version control or
>> snapshots of the current state of software. I'm pretty sure you've
>> lived on the bleeding edge of one system package or another.
>
> Yep... It's called either 'svn update' or 'git pull' :)
Which... doesn't correspond to a tarball. We have autobuilds working
in several places now, how difficult might it be to tar up a snapshot
during the post-buildconf phase of such a CI build?
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> We don't release 'snapshots'...
>
> That doesn't mean early adopters don't seek out version control or
> snapshots of the current state of software. I'm pretty sure you've
> lived on the bleeding edge of one system package or another.
>
Yep... It's called either 'svn update' or 'git pull' :)
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 1/30/2012 1:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:03 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 1/30/2012 7:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 13:19 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The right answer would be to have snapshots to share, but AFAIK we no
>>>>> longer create them?
>>>
>>> If people didn't test formally announced *betas*, I have significant
>>> doubts that they would test snapshots.
>>
>> Actually, this would go a long ways for those who want to adopt 2.4.1
>> but want the security of having a snapshot on that branch to pick up
>> our incremental fixes between .1 and .2, .2 and .3 etc.
>
> We don't release 'snapshots'...
That doesn't mean early adopters don't seek out version control or
snapshots of the current state of software. I'm pretty sure you've
lived on the bleeding edge of one system package or another.
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>.
On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:03 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 7:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 13:19 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The right answer would be to have snapshots to share, but AFAIK we no
>>>> longer create them?
>>
>> If people didn't test formally announced *betas*, I have significant
>> doubts that they would test snapshots.
>
> Actually, this would go a long ways for those who want to adopt 2.4.1
> but want the security of having a snapshot on that branch to pick up
> our incremental fixes between .1 and .2, .2 and .3 etc.
>
We don't release 'snapshots'...
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 1/30/2012 7:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 13:19 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> The right answer would be to have snapshots to share, but AFAIK we no
>>> longer create them?
>
> If people didn't test formally announced *betas*, I have significant
> doubts that they would test snapshots.
Actually, this would go a long ways for those who want to adopt 2.4.1
but want the security of having a snapshot on that branch to pick up
our incremental fixes between .1 and .2, .2 and .3 etc.
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jan 29, 2012, at 8:22 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 13:19 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> On 1/29/2012 4:21 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
>> > Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with a known bug (core
>> > issue), but would still be nice to have a 2.4.0/2.4.1 "something" to test-build with (for
>> > AIX).
>>
>> The right answer would be to have snapshots to share, but AFAIK we no
>> longer create them?
>
> I think if it was, then more testing could be done and the debacle of 2.4.0 _might_ not have happened
>
If people didn't test formally announced *betas*, I have significant
doubts that they would test snapshots.
But that's just imo.
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 13:19 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 1/29/2012 4:21 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
> > Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with a known bug (core
> > issue), but would still be nice to have a 2.4.0/2.4.1 "something" to test-build with (for
> > AIX).
>
> The right answer would be to have snapshots to share, but AFAIK we no
> longer create them?
I think if it was, then more testing could be done and the debacle of
2.4.0 _might_ not have happened
Re: Rename apachectl prior to 2.4.1 tag?
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Monday 30 January 2012, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 3:12 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > And there is apachectl, not httpdctl.
>
> Would anyone else like to see this changed, now, for the 2.4
> releases?
FTR, I am also -0 to this change right now.
Re: Rename apachectl prior to 2.4.1 tag?
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 30.01.2012 22:53, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 3:12 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>>
>> And there is apachectl, not httpdctl.
>
> Would anyone else like to see this changed, now, for the 2.4 releases?
-0.5
Rainer
Re: Rename apachectl prior to 2.4.1 tag?
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 15:53 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 3:12 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> >
> > And there is apachectl, not httpdctl.
>
> Would anyone else like to see this changed, now, for the 2.4 releases?
>
No... Maybe that's a consideration for 3.stable-release, if at all,
personally I wouldn't want to see it change, but hard to teach old dogs
new tricks sometimes
Re: Rename apachectl prior to 2.4.1 tag?
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:53 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 3:12 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>>
>> And there is apachectl, not httpdctl.
>
> Would anyone else like to see this changed, now, for the 2.4 releases?
-0
Rename apachectl prior to 2.4.1 tag?
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 1/30/2012 3:12 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>
> And there is apachectl, not httpdctl.
Would anyone else like to see this changed, now, for the 2.4 releases?
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Monday 30 January 2012, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 4:31 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:03 +0100, Michael Felt wrote:
> >> prefix: /opt/apache2
> >> exec_prefix: /opt/apache2
> >
> > I have often ponderd WHY people do things like this, the projects
> > name is apache, not apache2
Maybe because the default prefix is still /usr/local/apache2? Not sure
what it should be, maybe /usr/local/apache-httpd? But that's something
for 2.6/3.0.
And there is apachectl, not httpdctl.
> No, it isn't. Apache is the name of the foundation, and one word
> of the project's title.
>
> The project is Apache HTTP Server. Simply put, httpd. If you want
> to label it as 24, that would be /opt/httpd24.
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jan 30, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> I had "assummed" that apache2 was so that people could test apache2 without killing their apache"1" installation.
>
And you are correct...
Back in the day, we used 'apache' as the name of the web-server
("Powered by Apache" anyone?), and so that artifact existed long
long ago. Even distributions were called apache (apache_*).
And we also have apachectl and apxs and dozens of other
such uses, deprecated though the are, of using "apache" where
we really should be using "httpd"
Like our appendix, these are all artifacts of our evolution...
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 1/30/2012 6:21 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> I had "assummed" that apache2 was so that people could test apache2 without killing their
> apache"1" installation.
Fairly certain that was true. Of course moving from 2.0-2.2-2.4 that
is no longer much help.
Anyways, just wanted to let you know there is a list for precisely these
sorts of discussions, packagers@httpd.apache.org, where you'll find some
folks from all sorts of different environments. Might be useful for
comparing notes.
We post binaries only from committers to httpd. We are happy to work in
any platform-arch specific files much like you'll find the rpm.spec file
in httpd. Hope that answers your earlier question.
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Michael Felt <ma...@gmail.com>.
I had "assummed" that apache2 was so that people could test apache2 without
killing their apache"1" installation.
IMHO IBM's packaging of early apache (called IHS for - I think IBM HTTP
Server) was 'different' and they kept changing the name of the main
directory, e.g. changed the capitalization of the directory. Initially it
was something like /usr/HTTPServer/... -- I could never remember the
changes.
Not wanting to go off topic - this is related to my current working layout
for AIX -
Starting with AIX 5.0 (the beta version) IBM started using /opt as an
additional directory
for software packages - and these were "mainly" the RPM Linix Affinity
packages (aka RPM support). The formal definition I do not know. However,
as an observer I see that /usr and /opt are treated in WPAR (workload
partitions) as "compareable" because they are both considered to be common
to ALL AIX servers at a particiular TLSP (Technology Level + Service Pack).
Hence, they are mounted as read-only file systems in the WPAR.
/var is used in several ways. Traditionally for logging, but recently more
tools are storing data there as well.
Hence my preference for, if possible, a clear split between files meant to
be read-only/common to all installations and "installation variables".
Note also I am putting the man pages in the standard AIX manual location
(/usr/share/man) rather than in /*/apache2/* areas. Installed in that
location they are automatically available to the man command, i.e. without
any addition to a MANPATH variable.
Question: is any further discussion of an AIX layout "worthy/useful" in a
separate thread? (my original question has been answered I think as a yes -
do an AIX package).
If yes, the packaging tool is less important (to me). Initially, I am more
interested in feedback aka project decisions about the most manageable
organization for multiple instances (with System WPAR being a means to
generate additional instances).
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>wrote:
> **
> On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 12:13 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
> > I have often ponderd WHY people do things like this, the projects name is apache, not apache2
>
> No, it isn't. Apache is the name of the foundation, and one word
> of the project's title.
>
>
>
> You're right of course, so that makes it even worse - who then is apache2
> foundation [image: :)]
>
>
> The project is Apache HTTP Server. Simply put, httpd. If you want
>
>
>
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 12:13 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> > I have often ponderd WHY people do things like this, the projects name is apache, not apache2
>
> No, it isn't. Apache is the name of the foundation, and one word
> of the project's title.
>
You're right of course, so that makes it even worse - who then is
apache2 foundation :)
> The project is Apache HTTP Server. Simply put, httpd. If you want
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 1/30/2012 4:31 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:03 +0100, Michael Felt wrote:
>
>> prefix: /opt/apache2
>> exec_prefix: /opt/apache2
>
> I have often ponderd WHY people do things like this, the projects name is apache, not apache2
No, it isn't. Apache is the name of the foundation, and one word
of the project's title.
The project is Apache HTTP Server. Simply put, httpd. If you want
to label it as 24, that would be /opt/httpd24.
Our Netware distribution has this mistake, still. I hope this
is corrected with version 2.4.
Our package names are all httpd-n.n.n.tar.gz etc.
Unless you want a crazy tree of /opt/apache/httpd[/][##]/...
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:03 +0100, Michael Felt wrote:
> prefix: /opt/apache2
> exec_prefix: /opt/apache2
I have often ponderd WHY people do things like this, the projects name
is apache, not apache2
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Michael Felt <ma...@gmail.com>.
you might want to consider changing the meaning of "+" from apache2 to
httpd :)
Now I am using /var/httpd and /etc/httpd rather than /var+ and /etc+
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Michael Felt <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Understood. And considering above I shall change the "apache2" to httpd in
> my layout.
>
> Once I have all the scripts together to create "something" like the
> httpd.spec file I'll ask about how it should/could be integrated - so I can
> test that as well.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm> wrote:
>
>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 1:54 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
>>
>> > I can look at RPM, but I am at least 80% of the way with "installp". A
>> quickDirty one is already ready, but I want to finish it up a little bit
>> more (sub filesets, dependancies).
>>
>> What I meant was, we currently keep the various config files and scripts
>> for various build systems in the tree, and if you're keen, it would be
>> ideal that the AIX packaging can exist within the tree too, alongside the
>> others.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Graham
>> --
>>
>>
>
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Michael Felt <ma...@gmail.com>.
Understood. And considering above I shall change the "apache2" to httpd in
my layout.
Once I have all the scripts together to create "something" like the
httpd.spec file I'll ask about how it should/could be integrated - so I can
test that as well.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm> wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2012, at 1:54 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
>
> > I can look at RPM, but I am at least 80% of the way with "installp". A
> quickDirty one is already ready, but I want to finish it up a little bit
> more (sub filesets, dependancies).
>
> What I meant was, we currently keep the various config files and scripts
> for various build systems in the tree, and if you're keen, it would be
> ideal that the AIX packaging can exist within the tree too, alongside the
> others.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
>
>
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 31 Jan 2012, at 1:54 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
> I can look at RPM, but I am at least 80% of the way with "installp". A quickDirty one is already ready, but I want to finish it up a little bit more (sub filesets, dependancies).
What I meant was, we currently keep the various config files and scripts for various build systems in the tree, and if you're keen, it would be ideal that the AIX packaging can exist within the tree too, alongside the others.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Michael Felt <ma...@gmail.com>.
I can look at RPM, but I am at least 80% of the way with "installp". A
quickDirty one is already ready, but I want to finish it up a little bit
more (sub filesets, dependancies).
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm> wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2012, at 12:03 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
>
> > So, my question about this proposed layout: are there any files in /opt
> that need to be modified on a "per-system" basis?
>
> Not that I could see, no.
>
> > Finally, as a distributeable I would be creating an "installp", or AIX
> legacy package as this, imho, works better than RPM on AIX (and I know it
> better ;) )
>
> We currently have build files for RPM, solaris (pkg) and win32 in the
> "build" directory of the source, if it makes sense for the packaging it
> could be useful to go into the source here if you're willing to contribute
> a patch.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
>
>
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 30 Jan 2012, at 12:03 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> So, my question about this proposed layout: are there any files in /opt that need to be modified on a "per-system" basis?
Not that I could see, no.
> Finally, as a distributeable I would be creating an "installp", or AIX legacy package as this, imho, works better than RPM on AIX (and I know it better ;) )
We currently have build files for RPM, solaris (pkg) and win32 in the "build" directory of the source, if it makes sense for the packaging it could be useful to go into the source here if you're willing to contribute a patch.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Michael Felt <ma...@gmail.com>.
I have been adding this to the config.layout
# Adopt layout using /opt (read-only) filesystem conventions on AIX
# Standard executables in /opt (shareable)
# man pages at AIX standard location (/usr/share/man)
# editable files, scripts in /etc and /var
<Layout AIX>
prefix: /opt/apache2
exec_prefix: /opt/apache2
bindir: ${exec_prefix}/bin
sbindir: ${exec_prefix}/sbin
libdir: ${exec_prefix}/lib
libexecdir: ${exec_prefix}/libexec
mandir: /usr/share/man
sysconfdir: /etc+
datadir: /var+
installbuilddir: ${datadir}/build
errordir: ${datadir}/error
iconsdir: ${datadir}/icons
htdocsdir: ${datadir}/htdocs
manualdir: ${datadir}/manual
cgidir: ${datadir}/cgi-bin
includedir: ${prefix}/include
localstatedir: /var+
runtimedir: ${localstatedir}/run
logfiledir: ${localstatedir}/logs
proxycachedir: ${localstatedir}/proxy
</Layout>
I am hoping that this will work well supporting WPAR environments as well:
/opt, ideally, works read-only for multiple systems
/etc and /var are local to regular systems (stand-alone and LPAR servers)
So, my question about this proposed layout: are there any files in /opt
that need to be modified on a "per-system" basis?
Finally, as a distributeable I would be creating an "installp", or AIX
legacy package as this, imho, works better than RPM on AIX (and I know it
better ;) )
regards,
Michael
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm> wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2012, at 11:17 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
>
> > FYI - compiled 2.2.22 and 2.4.0 with no issues on AIX. Working on making
> an installable package (aka binary package). Is there any interest for this
> here, or is just a "fun" exercise for myself?
>
> What does this involve? Anything that makes an end user's life easier is
> welcome, including packaging up properly for an OS so that it's possible to
> deploy httpd in a standard way.
>
> Keep in mind the config.layout file, and --enable-layout option to
> ./configure, which will put all the various files in the right place
> directly. This removes the need to fiddle about trying to move files around
> during packaging, just tell httpd where they need to be and you're done.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
>
>
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 29 Jan 2012, at 11:17 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> FYI - compiled 2.2.22 and 2.4.0 with no issues on AIX. Working on making an installable package (aka binary package). Is there any interest for this here, or is just a "fun" exercise for myself?
What does this involve? Anything that makes an end user's life easier is welcome, including packaging up properly for an OS so that it's possible to deploy httpd in a standard way.
Keep in mind the config.layout file, and --enable-layout option to ./configure, which will put all the various files in the right place directly. This removes the need to fiddle about trying to move files around during packaging, just tell httpd where they need to be and you're done.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Michael Felt <ma...@gmail.com>.
FYI - compiled 2.2.22 and 2.4.0 with no issues on AIX. Working on making an
installable package (aka binary package). Is there any interest for this
here, or is just a "fun" exercise for myself?
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
> On 1/29/2012 4:21 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
> > Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with a
> known bug (core
> > issue), but would still be nice to have a 2.4.0/2.4.1 "something" to
> test-build with (for
> > AIX).
>
> The right answer would be to have snapshots to share, but AFAIK we no
> longer create them?
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=httpd+snapshot+site:apache.org
>
> doesn't give me hints.
>
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Am 29.01.2012 20:19, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
> On 1/29/2012 4:21 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
>> Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with a known bug (core
>> issue), but would still be nice to have a 2.4.0/2.4.1 "something" to test-build with (for
>> AIX).
>
> The right answer would be to have snapshots to share, but AFAIK we no
> longer create them?
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=httpd+snapshot+site:apache.org
>
> doesn't give me hints.
>
Betreff: http://svn.apache.org/snapshots turned off
Datum: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 11:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Von: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
Antwort an: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
An: Apache Infrastructure <in...@apache.org>
After starting the migration to having svn serviced
with 1.7.0 a few weeks ago, we inadvertently broke
the ancient snapshot service on svn.apache.org.
Now is therefore as good a time as any to finally
deactivate it, so I've gone ahead and done that.
Development communities who still require periodic
snapshots of svn should setup a build service (either
buildbot or jenkins) to do that. People wishing to
retain such a service in order to make it available
to the general public are simply out of luck as such
people are effectively trying to route around ASF policy
regarding releases.
Pass this info along as necessary.
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Am 29.01.2012 20:19, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
> On 1/29/2012 4:21 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
>> Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with a known bug (core
>> issue), but would still be nice to have a 2.4.0/2.4.1 "something" to test-build with (for
>> AIX).
>
> The right answer would be to have snapshots to share, but AFAIK we no
> longer create them?
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=httpd+snapshot+site:apache.org
>
> doesn't give me hints.
>
here are mine:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/snapshots/
Gün.
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 1/29/2012 4:21 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
> Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with a known bug (core
> issue), but would still be nice to have a 2.4.0/2.4.1 "something" to test-build with (for
> AIX).
The right answer would be to have snapshots to share, but AFAIK we no
longer create them?
https://www.google.com/search?q=httpd+snapshot+site:apache.org
doesn't give me hints.
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Michael Felt <ma...@gmail.com>.
Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with a known
bug (core issue), but would still be nice to have a 2.4.0/2.4.1 "something"
to test-build with (for AIX).
In other words, in the /dev/dist directory I only find the 2.2.22 images.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > I am rescinding the vote for 2.4.0. Instead, on Monday (or
> > Tuesday at the latest) I will T&R 2.4.1.
>
> Plese wait until at least the core output filter issue is completely
> resolved. Thanks.
>
Re: [RESCINDED ]Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Sunday 22 January 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I am rescinding the vote for 2.4.0. Instead, on Monday (or
> Tuesday at the latest) I will T&R 2.4.1.
Plese wait until at least the core output filter issue is completely
resolved. Thanks.