Re: [VOTE] Release 2.0.65 [the final frontier]
On 28.06.2013 23:28, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Candidates are in http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ +/-1 [+1] Release 2.0.65 as the final 2.0 series package +1 for release and thanks for RM. Tested on Solaris 8+10 Sparc, SuSE Linux Enterprise 10 32Bit, SLES 10+11 64 Bit, RedHat Enterprise Linux 5+6 64Bit - signature and hashes OK - key in KEYS file - gz and bz2 contents identical - no unexpected diff to svn tag - built and tested on - Solaris 8+10 Sparc - SuSE Linux Enterprise 10 (32Bit and 64Bit) - SLES 11 (64 Bit) - RedHat Enterprise Linux 5/6 64Bit - builds fine using gcc - out of tree - with all, most and default module sets - with either default (static) or shared linked modules - MPMs prefork, worker - dependencies apr/apu/expat/pcre/openssl: a) all bundled b) 0.9.20/0.9.19/2.1.0/8.33/0.9.8y - test suite run for all builds with module set all and log levels info and debug (had to increase DYNAMIC_MODULE_LIMIT). Failing tests (no regressions relative to 2.0.64, for dav the test was not present when 2.0.64 was released): Failed test 4 in t/apache/pr17629.t at line 47 Failed test 4 in t/apache/pr43939.t at line 43 Failed test 16 in t/modules/dav.t at line 172 (PR 49825) plus three failures in mod_dav that happened only once in 120 test runs: Failed test 1 in t/modules/dav.t at line 47 Failed test 6 in t/modules/dav.t at line 73 Failed test 7 in t/modules/dav.t at line 81 Probably NFS-related. One warning in t/modules/include.t on the old Linux platforms SLES 10 and RHEL 5: Use of uninitialized value in scalar assignment at t/modules/include.t line 346 Regards, Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.0.65 [the final frontier]
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote: Candidates are in http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ +/-1 [ ] Release 2.0.65 as the final 2.0 series package TIA! [+1] Release 2.0.65 as the final 2.0 series package Tested 64-bit builds on FreeBSD 9 Compares favorably with 2.0.64. 2.0.64 vs. 2.0.65: Test Summary Report --- -t/apache/byterange7.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 24 Failed: 8) - Failed tests: 13-19, 23 t/apache/pr17629.t(Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Failed: 1) Failed test: 4 t/apache/pr43939.t(Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Failed: 1) @@ -570,15 +553,9 @@ Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 58 tests but ran 50. t/modules/dav.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 16 Failed: 1) Failed test: 16 -t/modules/include.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 87 Failed: 1) - Failed test: 66 -t/modules/rewrite.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 29 Failed: 1) - Failed test: 24 -t/security/CVE-2011-3368-rewrite.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 3 Failed: 1) - Failed test: 3 -Files=108, Tests=3246, 91 wallclock secs ( 2.00 usr 0.33 sys + 36.73 cusr 9.00 csys = 48.05 CPU) +Files=108, Tests=3246, 92 wallclock secs ( 1.91 usr 0.33 sys + 36.18 cusr 8.55 csys = 46.97 CPU) Result: FAIL -Failed 8/108 test programs. 27/3246 subtests failed. +Failed 4/108 test programs. 16/3246 subtests failed. Another note: Some tests I had for the vulnerabilities passed. -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.0.65 [the final frontier]
On 28.06.2013 23:28, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Candidates are in http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ +/-1 [ ] Release 2.0.65 as the final 2.0 series package TIA! it seems a bit odd to me that we now roll the 2.0.65 final without having APR/APU picking up latest fixes [1][2], making this release hanging around for ever bundled with APR/APU 0.9.x versions which lack latest stuff: Index: CHANGES === --- CHANGES (revision 1170001) +++ CHANGES (working copy) @@ -1,4 +1,24 @@ - -*- coding: utf-8 -*- + +-*- coding: utf-8 -*- +Changes with APR 0.9.21 + + *) configure: Fix detection of O_NONBLOCK inheritance on busy + systems. [Rainer Jung] + + *) apr_time_exp_*() on Windows: Fix error in the tm_yday field of + apr_time_exp_t for times within leap years. PR 53175. + [Jeff Trawick] + + *) Improve platform detection by updating config.guess and config.sub. + [Rainer Jung] + + *) Flush write buffer before truncate call on a file. + [Mladen Turk] + + *) Security: oCERT-2011-003 + Randomise hashes by providing a seed. + [Bojan Smojver, Branko ÄŒibej, Ruediger Pluem et al.] + Index: CHANGES === --- CHANGES (revision 1021610) +++ CHANGES (working copy) @@ -1,4 +1,9 @@ -*- coding: utf-8 -*- +Changes with APR-util 0.9.20 + + *) Improve platform detection for bundled expat by updating + config.guess and config.sub. [Rainer Jung] + we should really also tag release APR/APU 0.9.x, and then bundle these with 2.0.65; and perhaps also announce EOL of 0.9.x branch ... Gün. [1] http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/apr-0_9_20.diff [2] http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/apu-0_9_19.diff
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.0.65 [the final frontier]
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: Candidates are in http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ +1, tested on AIX 5.3 / xlc / PPC32 and AIX 7.1 / xlc / PPC64 AIX 5.3: Only failures in recently updated include.t timezone stuff AIX 7.1: 100% success -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.0.65 [the final frontier]
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote: Candidates are in http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ +/-1 [ ] Release 2.0.65 as the final 2.0 series package TIA! [+1] Release 2.0.65 as the final 2.0 series package Tested 64-bit builds on FreeBSD 9 Compares favorably with 2.0.64. 2.0.64 vs. 2.0.65: Test Summary Report --- -t/apache/byterange7.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 24 Failed: 8) - Failed tests: 13-19, 23 t/apache/pr17629.t(Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Failed: 1) Failed test: 4 t/apache/pr43939.t(Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Failed: 1) @@ -570,15 +553,9 @@ Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 58 tests but ran 50. t/modules/dav.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 16 Failed: 1) Failed test: 16 -t/modules/include.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 87 Failed: 1) - Failed test: 66 -t/modules/rewrite.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 29 Failed: 1) - Failed test: 24 -t/security/CVE-2011-3368-rewrite.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 3 Failed: 1) - Failed test: 3 -Files=108, Tests=3246, 91 wallclock secs ( 2.00 usr 0.33 sys + 36.73 cusr 9.00 csys = 48.05 CPU) +Files=108, Tests=3246, 92 wallclock secs ( 1.91 usr 0.33 sys + 36.18 cusr 8.55 csys = 46.97 CPU) Result: FAIL -Failed 8/108 test programs. 27/3246 subtests failed. +Failed 4/108 test programs. 16/3246 subtests failed.
