[CLOSED] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.6 as GA

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

With more than 3 (binding) +1 votes and no -1s, I call the voting
CLOSED and the release Good To Go.

I will move the artifacts over to release, so that mirrors can
sync up and plan to announce on Monday.

Thx to all testers and voters!

On Jul 15, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:

> The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.6 can be found
> at the usual place:
> 
> 	http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
> 
> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.6 GA.
> NOTE: The -deps tarballs are included here *only* to make life
> easier for the tester. They will not be, and are not, part
> of the official release.
> 
> [ ] +1: Good to go
> [ ] +0: meh
> [ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why.
> 
> Vote will last the normal 72 hrs.
> 

Re: Anyone interested in a patch to mod_fcgid(with pay)

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:46:58 +0800 (CST)
Pqf 潘庆峰 <pq...@mailtech.cn> wrote:

> Yes, split process control from mod_fcgid, merge proxy_fcgi(with 
> load balance) and mod_fcgid(with authXX support) is a good idea,
> admins can use httpd as process manager, or 3rd party process
> managers as they like. But don't just make a patch to make mod_fcgid
> support TCP/IP, it's ugly...

Nice synopsis :)

Re: Re: Anyone interested in a patch to mod_fcgid(with pay)

[Pqf 潘庆峰 <pq...@mailtech.cn>]

Yes, split process control from mod_fcgid, merge proxy_fcgi(with 
load balance) and mod_fcgid(with authXX support) is a good idea,
admins can use httpd as process manager, or 3rd party process managers as they like.
But don't just make a patch to make mod_fcgid support TCP/IP, it's ugly...



> 
> > Hi, guys
> >    A company need a "TCP/IP patch of mod_fcgid or alternative", and
> > will pay for it, anyone interested? I really like to take it but I
> > don't have too much time... Anyone interested please reply to me and
> > I will forward the email address of them.
> > 
> > ...
> > Neti only listens on TCP/IP socket, it assumes both an authorizer
> > role and a responder role in the Fast CGI request. Here's the 3
> > candidate Apache modules to interface Neti:
> > ...
> >
> > 2. Mod_proxy_fcgi: this module supports TCP socket, it can connect to
> > Neti, but it doesn't support authorizer role. So in the first FCGI
> > request, it forwards the request to Neti as a responder instead of an
> > authorizer, Neti cannot simply let it through without properly
> > authorizing it first, thus the request fails;
> > 
> > 3. Mod_fcgid: this module supports authorizer role while doesn't
> > support TCP connection. We cannot confirm its authorizer role since
> > it doesn't even connect to Neti due to lack of TCP;
> > 
> > So our choice is between either adding authorizer role to
> > mod_proxy_fcgi or adding TCP/IP to mod_fcgid. 
> > 
> > We’re really willing to pay to have this project done, I mean either
> > adding proxy to mod_fcgid or adding authorizer to mod_proxy_fcgi. Are
> > you willing to work on this with reward or do you know anyone else
> > who’s interested in doing so with pay, for example, author of
> > mod_proxy_fcgi? (I cannot find his name)
> 
> No cycles myself at this instant, but it seems overtime to break apart
> the mod_fcgid process-control so that it can then stack on top of a
> single mod_proxy_fcgi communications pipe, dispatched through different
> fcgi-stream methods (including child process stdio), including the
> various authn/authz roles.  It would take more time to refactor it in
> this way, but would get rid of any discrepancies between proxy_fcgi
> and fcgid and serve as a good excuse to draw the remaining mod_fcgid
> development back into trunk/, now that fcgid is generally sufficient
> for 2.2 users.
> 
> 
> 

Re: Anyone interested in a patch to mod_fcgid(with pay)

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:39:20 +0800 (CST)
Pqf 潘庆峰 <pq...@mailtech.cn> wrote:

> Hi, guys
>    A company need a "TCP/IP patch of mod_fcgid or alternative", and
> will pay for it, anyone interested? I really like to take it but I
> don't have too much time... Anyone interested please reply to me and
> I will forward the email address of them.
> 
> ...
> Neti only listens on TCP/IP socket, it assumes both an authorizer
> role and a responder role in the Fast CGI request. Here's the 3
> candidate Apache modules to interface Neti:
> ...
>
> 2. Mod_proxy_fcgi: this module supports TCP socket, it can connect to
> Neti, but it doesn't support authorizer role. So in the first FCGI
> request, it forwards the request to Neti as a responder instead of an
> authorizer, Neti cannot simply let it through without properly
> authorizing it first, thus the request fails;
> 
> 3. Mod_fcgid: this module supports authorizer role while doesn't
> support TCP connection. We cannot confirm its authorizer role since
> it doesn't even connect to Neti due to lack of TCP;
> 
> So our choice is between either adding authorizer role to
> mod_proxy_fcgi or adding TCP/IP to mod_fcgid. 
> 
> We’re really willing to pay to have this project done, I mean either
> adding proxy to mod_fcgid or adding authorizer to mod_proxy_fcgi. Are
> you willing to work on this with reward or do you know anyone else
> who’s interested in doing so with pay, for example, author of
> mod_proxy_fcgi? (I cannot find his name)

No cycles myself at this instant, but it seems overtime to break apart
the mod_fcgid process-control so that it can then stack on top of a
single mod_proxy_fcgi communications pipe, dispatched through different
fcgi-stream methods (including child process stdio), including the
various authn/authz roles.  It would take more time to refactor it in
this way, but would get rid of any discrepancies between proxy_fcgi
and fcgid and serve as a good excuse to draw the remaining mod_fcgid
development back into trunk/, now that fcgid is generally sufficient
for 2.2 users.

Anyone interested in a patch to mod_fcgid(with pay)

[Pqf 潘庆峰 <pq...@mailtech.cn>]

Hi, guys
   A company need a "TCP/IP patch of mod_fcgid or alternative", and will pay for it, anyone interested? I really like to take it but I don't have too much time...
   Anyone interested please reply to me and I will forward the email address of them.


Our company is hosting a website with a lot of users. Each user needs login to access our server. We have an in-house FCGI program responsible for authenticate user's credentials. The FCGI program is called “Neti”;. Right now Neti works fine with Zeus server, however we want to switch to Apache server.

Neti only listens on TCP/IP socket, it assumes both an authorizer role and a responder role in the Fast CGI request. Here's the 3 candidate Apache modules to interface Neti:

1. Mod_fastcgi: this module has NOT been updated since 2007. It will break randomly, (not only with Neti, but with some other FCGIs), so we're not planning to pursue it;

2. Mod_proxy_fcgi: this module supports TCP socket, it can connect to Neti, but it doesn't support authorizer role. So in the first FCGI request, it forwards the request to Neti as a responder instead of an authorizer, Neti cannot simply let it through without properly authorizing it first, thus the request fails;

3. Mod_fcgid: this module supports authorizer role while doesn't support TCP connection. We cannot confirm its authorizer role since it doesn't even connect to Neti due to lack of TCP;

So our choice is between either adding authorizer role to mod_proxy_fcgi or adding TCP/IP to mod_fcgid. 

We’re really willing to pay to have this project done, I mean either adding proxy to mod_fcgid or adding authorizer to mod_proxy_fcgi. Are you willing to work on this with reward or do you know anyone else who’s interested in doing so with pay, for example, author of mod_proxy_fcgi? (I cannot find his name)


Ryan