One more make pain point

Any objections to --- build/mkdir.sh (revision 1825390) +++ build/mkdir.sh (working copy) @@ -38,7 +38,6 @@ continue ;; esac if test ! -d "$pathcomp"; then -echo "mkdir $pathcomp" 1>&2 mkdir "$pathcomp" || errstatus=$? fi

Re: Current branche 2.4.30-dev issues

your input, Cheers Bill On Feb 25, 2018 14:17, "Gregg Smith" <g...@gknw.net> wrote: On 2/23/2018 10:24 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Steffen <i...@apachelounge.com> wrote: > >> >> Op 18 feb. 2018 om 17:57 he

Re: svn commit: r1825169 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/config.m4

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 9:23 PM, wrote: >> Author: wrowe >> Date: Fri Feb 23 20:23:10 2018 >> New Revision: 1825169 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1825169=rev >> Log: >> Propose

Re: Lua detection autoconf mess (was: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.30)

ppy to add a +1 there too once I try it out on ubuntu. > On 02/22/2018 10:54 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> This wasn't pretty; candidate 2.4.30 build on current fedora... >> >> /path/build/libtool --silent --mode=link gcc -g -O2 -pthread >> -L/path/lib -o mod_lua

Re: Current branche 2.4.30-dev issues

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Steffen wrote: > >> Op 18 feb. 2018 om 17:57 heeft Eric Covener het volgende >> geschreven: >> >>> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Steffen wrote: >>> >>> On Sunday 18/02/2018 at 17:39, Eric

Re: Lua detection autoconf mess (was: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.30)

Correct, as I said this may not be a regression, as it continues to locate /use/lib64 files. Modern ld is tolerant on linux at least when not in -Wall more. Other archs may not be so kind. On Feb 23, 2018 09:15, "Eric Covener" wrote: >> Do you end up with an -L/usr/lib for

Re: Lua detection autoconf mess (was: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.30)

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 2:17 AM, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote: > Hm, it work for me on Centos 6 and 7. What lua packages have you installed? > I only have the 64 bit versions installed. Do you have 32 bit versions > installed as well? > > On 02/22/2018 10:54

Lua detection autoconf mess (was: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.30)

This wasn't pretty; candidate 2.4.30 build on current fedora... /path/build/libtool --silent --mode=link gcc -g -O2 -pthread -L/path/lib -o mod_lua.la -rpath /path/modules -module -avoid-version lua_apr.lo lua_config.lo mod_lua.lo lua_request.lo lua_vmprep.lo lua_dbd.lo lua_passwd.lo

Re: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Luca Toscano wrote: > > does this mean also removing the doc pages? If so I'd be a little bit > concerned, there are still a lot of people using 2.2 and even not-up-to-date > documentation is still better than nothing. Maybe we could send

Re: svn commit: r1825010 - /httpd/site/trunk/content/docs/index.mdtext

Perhaps we want to restore 2.0 as well as 1.3 with an (obsolete) or (historical) tag, and reverse the list for completeness? Alternately, remove 1.3 and 2.0 altogether? Each represents about 1% of total httpd deployments, and suggest those deployments are rather abandoned anyways, so the value

[POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch

On 1 June of 2016 we concluded the 2.2.x lifecycle poll and discussion with the following summary; "The Apache Web Server Project will continue to provide maintenance releases of the 2.2.x flavor through June of 2017, and will provide some security patches beyond this date through at least

Re: Binary Breakage (was: svn commit: r1824592 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS)

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote: > >> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- >> Von: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net] >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Februar 2018 22:29 >> An: httpd <

Re: win32: disable shared LDAP cache by default

Which patch? I think you are missing a digit. On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 5:57 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > I am hoping this is fixed by > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=182481 which I > stumbled onto from another direction. > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Stefan

Re: Binary Breakage (was: svn commit: r1824592 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS)

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:29 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>

Re: svn commit: r25136 - /release/httpd/flood/

Speaking of, are these needed, or should we create attic/ ? http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/flood/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/mod_spdy/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/mod_wombat/ and most content within http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/sandbox/ (as a sandbox/attic/)? I

Re: Binary Breakage (was: svn commit: r1824592 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS)

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > This probably does not apply to 2.4.x (as a strong statement), in the > meantime we at least need the helpers and give a hand at updating the > modules, if we can't avoid extending our own structs... I agree this

Re: Binary Breakage (was: svn commit: r1824592 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS)

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 02/20/2018 09:39 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >> Moving a member in a well-defined structure doesn't fall into this >> generally accepted change (expanding the length of a struct.) >&

Licensing claims (pcreposix)

I made a fundamental mistake as we removed PCRE from the source tree of httpd; although we stopped distributing the pcre library in 2.4.x source tree, our own util_pcre.c is largely founded on the work of Philip Hazel/Cambridge; although the larger work doesn't need to be advertised in our LICENSE

Re: Binary Breakage (was: svn commit: r1824592 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS)

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 02/20/2018 08:20 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >> In other words, modules from one STABLE release to another ARE binary >> compatible and do NOT need to be recompiled. >> >>

Binary Breakage (was: svn commit: r1824592 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS)

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Joe Orton wrote: > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 02:06:20PM -, minf...@apache.org wrote: >> Author: minfrin >> Date: Sat Feb 17 14:06:20 2018 >> New Revision: 1824592 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1824592=rev >> Log: >> Update

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.30

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:06 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > -1: I think with the release process hiccups and the Win issues > noted in the "Current branche 2.4.30-dev issues" thread, > we will need a 2.4.31. Additionally, there are some > backports in STATUS that could also be

Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > On 02/15/2018 07:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> It seems like some serious overhead to force a function call >> for each and every access to a struct field, especially if > > I don't see this in the proposal below.

Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > It seems like some serious overhead to force a function call > for each and every access to a struct field, especially if > it's only so we can adjust those struct fields w/o a corresponding > change in the ABI... Why

Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > On 15 Feb 2018, at 5:03 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > >> I've long been in favor of every httpd struct having an exposed _create() >> function. It hadn't occurred to

Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

I've long been in favor of every httpd struct having an exposed _create() function. It hadn't occurred to me to expose either a _sizeof() or _copy() accessor, but mod_ftp could use this (until Stefan introduced the idea of run time server_rec merging.) What is the preference? _sizeof() or

Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

For the match of balancer://group/ I don't believe length adds any value. The one and hopefully final strcmp to validate the hash elt election should accomplish this. From that point it becomes simple sting concatenation. The optimization is getting us to that elt. On Feb 13, 2018 11:32 AM,

Re: Time for 2.4.30? (Was: Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!)

And perhaps sufficient testing of the end result? The number of exceptions at the moment bode ill for a stable long term release. Feature dumps always introduce instability. Maybe a bug fix only freeze for a short period to stabilize that pile of code? On Feb 14, 2018 06:41, "Jim Jagielski"

Re: Scope of RemoteIPProxyProtocol* (was: svn commit: r1824211 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS)

Not at all. This is physical host vs named based vhost. We got clever and eliminated the distinction after 2.0... which is catching up with us. Should we reintroduce a physical vhost? I don't have a simple answer, but we can at least keep repeating that the first vhost is the physical vhost and

Re: Scope of RemoteIPProxyProtocol* (was: svn commit: r1824211 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS)

That explanation is noxious. If enabled in the *default* initial matching physical ip:port host it applies to all related hosts If enabled in any secondary-non-default named vhost it is ignored. On Feb 14, 2018 06:28, "Graham Leggett" wrote: > On 14 Feb 2018, at 1:03 PM,

Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > On 09 Feb 2018, at 7:12 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > [Why] would you compare 8192 byte strings as identifiers? > > I just checked the code, and as I suspected th

Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

of trashing 8k in shm for an 'unallocated' and unnecessary storage unit is absurd. On Feb 8, 2018 11:04 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > Since you won't permit 2.6/3.0 to come into existence, we can presume this > was just a strawman? > > >

Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

that SHM as needed. > > Cleanup would need some thought... > > > On Feb 8, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > > > > On 07 Feb 2018, at 8:46 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: > > > >> In order to find

Re: Issues with instdso.sh, build-1/libtool (and perhaps gnu.libtool)

the wrong list to address you php concerns, but I'm ok with our helping you once or twice more. Good luck in your efforts; On Feb 8, 2018 4:19 PM, "Michael Felt" <aixto...@felt.demon.nl> wrote: On 07-Feb-18 19:40, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Is the sapi compiled against libt

Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2018, at 1:41 PM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > > On 07 Feb 2018, at 8:34 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > So long as other mod_proxy_*

Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > On 07 Feb 2018, at 8:36 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > But there is no argument for a name identifier >255 characters ... the cited > RFC > and the fil

Re: Issues with instdso.sh, build-1/libtool (and perhaps gnu.libtool)

Is the sapi compiled against libtool etc. from httpd? Or is it using the configure logic shipped with the php package? In any case, asking httpd/apr to conform to the autoconf/libtool packaging of php, which was built using its own flavor of the toolchain seems inconsistent. It seems foolish to

Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > On 07 Feb 2018, at 7:04 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > These are fixed shm strings, IIRC? How is a balancer name >256 > characters usable in anything but automated strin

Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 11:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > So can I assume that a backport req to bump-up the field sizes to, at least, > what is in trunk, would not be vetoed? So long as other mod_proxy_* compiled against 2.4.29 do not crash, then no - it is doesn't seem we

Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 07 Feb 2018, at 5:34 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik > wrote: > > Not sure how this broke on your end - but the cases where I had it break on > me in production where all cases where things were

Re: The Case for Managed Domains

Forgive the top-post, Gmail app sucks. Thanks for taking the time for tl;dr - it sums up the current situation really well. I pointed out some months ago that the matching foo in vhosts is weak, since we have a 1:1 ip:port relationship. We determined that can change in the next iteration to

Re: The Case for Managed Domains

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Luca Toscano wrote: >> I am a bit ignorant about mod_bmx so I'd need to ask some follow up >> questions: how is it going to solve Stefan's points? As a far as I can

Re: svn commit: r1822879 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c

You can't retrieve in the register fn hook, without creating load order dependencies. On Feb 2, 2018 02:44, "Joe Orton" wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:01:41PM -, yla...@apache.org wrote: > > Author: ylavic > > Date: Thu Feb 1 15:01:40 2018 > > New Revision:

Re: can we haz backports?

rote: >>> >>>> Am 16.01.2018 um 21:26 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>: >>>> >>>> Color me very confused, but I can't distinguish a difference between vhost >>>> based >>>> Host: header selection in the &

Re: can we haz backports?

Color me very confused, but I can't distinguish a difference between vhost based Host: header selection in the "http-01" case, and SNI identification in the case of "tls-sni-01". Am I missing something? Discussion pointers? For protocol reasons, "dns-01" seems outside the scope of any mod_md

Re: Missing make install files?

tree.] On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:32 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > This slightly overlaps what Jacob has been working on with his > schema for our autobuilds, wrapping up my own work and then > turning to his efforts to see where we have some good synergie

Re: remoteip module - extended support in 2.4 branch

ature for me is actually one > disabling PROXY mode for particular IPs - something I can not achieve with > proxy_protocol external module > > M. > > ____________ > Od: "William A Rowe Jr" <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > Do: "dev" <dev@httpd.a

Re: remoteip module - extended support in 2.4 branch

Marcin, There are no required API changes; you should be able to drop in the trunk version of mod_remoteip.c and it should just compiler. Or you can compile the trunk module with apxs -c There is one agreed/anticipated change, to enable PROXY protocol on a remote client IP basis (e.g. enable for

Re: [REQUEST] Httpd Webserver Training in French

Hi Sharan, it's usually more efficient to ask the community directly about project-specific asks. I've gone ahead and forwarded your note to the users and dev lists where we are more likely to find the right resources. I personally know at least a half dozen httpd committers proficient in French,

Re: Mistaken attributions?

On Dec 19, 2017 11:08, "William A Rowe Jr" <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > - ./server/util_pcre.c > > (likely more) [] Others are lifted under license from other parties; th

Re: Mistaken attributions?

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> On Dec 15, 2017, at 11:26 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >> >> Actually remoteip isn't a showstopper... I find it demotivating and against >> the spirit o

Re: Mistaken attributions?

, 2017 04:04, "Graham Leggett" <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: On 14 Dec 2017, at 8:43 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > So without diving into why one or another form is more correct, > the ASF's global license header guidance is absolute. > > mod

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.5.0-alpha

Based on the copyright/licensing exception I noted earlier today, I have to vote -1. I'd expect the incubating rat tool could have caught this, but it is principally invoked against incubating candidates. Now that the mod_md config changes are in place, I suspect we are ready for a second

Mistaken attributions?

So without diving into why one or another form is more correct, the ASF's global license header guidance is absolute. mod_remoteip is an example of getting it 'right' by many definitions of 'right' across the ASF; /* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more *

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > Aye, I had originally added the support for PROXY in remoteip since... > well... it's used to extract remote IP info. The funny part is that I had > committed my additions within an hour of the third party code being

Re: mod_proxy_uwsgi build errors

C99 is promiscuous. I thought we were holding to C89 on the 2.4 branch? On Dec 13, 2017 09:23, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > We use uint8_t numerous places elsewhere. > > > On Dec 13, 2017, at 9:44 AM, Steffen wrote: > > > > > > @jim > > > > You adjusted

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:19 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> >> On Dec 13, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Jordan Gigov <colad...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 12 Decemb

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > On 13 Dec 2017, at 2:22 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > >> Or, it is bad form to introduce features and then force some >> config-changes on users after the 'experiment

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > Personally, I think it is bad form to hold off on a back port > for a feature that only 1 person really, really "demanded" > and then not do anything to add that functionality in. > > So I say YES, we SHOULD vote on

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Dec 13, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Jordan Gigov wrote: > > On 12 December 2017 at 11:32, Stefan Eissing > wrote: >> >> Fellow Apache developers: if we want to make an X-mas

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

I tend to agree that proxy, being a 'lower level' protocol, aught to represent before remoteip presents itself. Overloading the module seemed like a headache. That said, as the author of remoteip, I consider my opinions highly biased and untrusted by me myself, so you all sort that out :) Thanks

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > Fellow Apache developers: if we want to make an X-mas 2.4 release for the > people on this planet, the backports in STATUS need your attention: > > B2: mod_remoteip: Add PROXY protocol support > - needs 1

Re: mod_md and ManagedDomain

On Dec 11, 2017 08:55, "Stefan Eissing" . Documentation update is still outstanding, but I assume merging those in is not really a voting issue. Docs are CTR. Might be an issue for some to introduce undocumented changes in the maintenance branch, but is easily remedied.

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.5.0-alpha

On Nov 25, 2017 09:13, "Daniel Ruggeri" wrote: As a side note, I'm experimenting with ways to capture build and test output as well as relevant system info related to a tested version of httpd. Here's the current format I am using in YML (can be seen here for this build:

Re: mod_md and ManagedDomain

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Luca Toscano wrote: > Maybe ManagedDomain and , as iiuc we are going to use > for SSLPolicy? Just an observation, http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/mod/quickreference.html illustrated that we have no verbs in directive block titles, thus

Re: PHP test cases

That feature has been unsupported for over 3 1/2 years. Drop the test. Bill On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > Hi, all; > > I have only one set of remaining test cases to complete my > automated-build-and-test-and-report thingamajig. I've identified a

Anyone familiar with Perl CPAN Bundle approach?

I'd like to automate the gathering of private copies of the necessary packages for our perl-framework. While Bundle::ApacheTest is already present, it describes only what ApacheTest needs to know. The example buried as an external under our framework directory Apache-Test/lib/Bundle which is

Re: 2.5 alpha proposal

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote: >> Am 16.11.2017 um 14:03 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>: >> >> So, we won't be able to ignore this for long... >> >> I'd propose we migrate dsp to the

2.5 alpha proposal

So, we won't be able to ignore this for long... I'd propose we migrate dsp to the oldest supported vcproj format (my cvtdsp can help get these flags right) for those who like the IDE, until we show that cmake generated vcproj files work just fine. Hopefully this occurs prior to beta. Drop .mak

Re: windows building

The nmake files are all exported from Visual Studio 98... Last flavor which allowed exporting, and effectively impossible to provision without ancient MSDN CDs, because the product distribution ended to comply with the settlement of Sun's lawsuit against MS over MS JavaScript, IIRC. I still have

XML breakage on AIX in 2.4.29 (was: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.29 as GA)

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Eric Covener wrote: >> Below is an addition to the first message: It appears (from the -bloadmap >> output) that XML_Parse is suppossed to be coming from apr-util. Or is it >> APR-UTIL is the caller? >> >> :g/XML_Parse/p >> (ld): keep XML_Parse

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.5.0-alpha

Just to clarify one aspect you asked about; On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/ is also http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ as you can see from the contents of that URL (this is automatic, as is

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > This is open for discussion. My opinion: For Alpha, I think it makes sense > to tag from trunk rather than branching first. That is, delay the branching > as long as possible so 2.6 looks as close to trunk for as long

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 6, 2017, at 12:18 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >> >> Reiterating again, that we disagree about who our preferred >> approaches are serving and they are

Re: [NOTICE] Intent to T 2.5.0-alpha

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > Hi, all; > >As has been chatted about in other threads, I hope to T 2.5.0-alpha > in the coming days. I suppose notice is too soon to do so this evening, > so I'll plan for early next week. > >Also, as a side

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 4, 2017, at 11:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >> >> It is safer. It is incredibly time consuming to effectively perform >> a full audit of the state

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:39 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2017 12:21, "Jim Jagielski" <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> Sorry Bill, but that's

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Nov 5, 2017 11:49, "William A Rowe Jr" <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: Suggested reading; it is interesting to me how many participants of these threads are now absent, and of those who remain, who are sitting on opposite positions of what they held before; http://mark

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Nov 5, 2017 12:21, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: Sorry Bill, but that's not right. trunk is not a "branch" that directly leads to a releasable branch. Its simply not. It was not intended to be. You cannot now claim that any inability, or concern, about releasing a RTC "sandbox"

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Nov 5, 2017 10:47, "Eric Covener" <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 12:53 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Nov 4, 2017 23:18, "Jacob Champion" <champio...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 4, 2017 8:44 PM,

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Nov 4, 2017 23:18, "Jacob Champion" <champio...@gmail.com> wrote: On Nov 4, 2017 8:44 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >> Will it be a fork of latest 2.4.x and trunk things will have to be >> proposed, voted and backported? T

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> So 2.5.0-alpha will be RTC. Howso? I haven't seen a vote. There can be no 2.5.x-GA. We only deliver

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Nov 4, 2017 05:04, "Steffen" wrote: Soon we have: branches 2.4.x trunk 2.5.0-alpha patches/2.4.x patches/trunk Please a procedure: *where* and *when* do we apply patches/fixes. I hope not. Trunk tracks new development. There is no distinction between 2.5.x and

Re: [NOTICE] Intent to T 2.5.0-alpha

We do not have 2.2 activity, it is fully baked and done, so we have 2.4 GA releases. We would likely want to take 2.2 tarballs down sometime between year end and mid-next year (12 mos anniversary) to avoid further confusion. Patches for security defects in 2.2 will continue to be accumulated until

Re: svn commit: r1813027 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > Can we count that as a +1? Once I've tested. My initial reviews were ensuring compatibility. Like you, I don't have a repro case yet. I see there is some activity within httpd test framework that may cover it,

Re: svn commit: r1813027 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

gt; Le 01/11/2017 à 11:02, Rainer Jung a écrit : > >> Hi Bill, >> >> Am 31.10.2017 um 21:29 schrieb William A Rowe Jr: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:17 AM, <yla...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Author: ylavic >>>> Date

Re: svn commit: r1813027 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:17 AM, wrote: > Author: ylavic > Date: Mon Oct 23 15:17:02 2017 > New Revision: 1813027 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1813027=rev > Log: > Update comment according to patch version (v5). > > Modified: >

Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > You could make a dir /branches/attic" and move all candidates there. People > wanting to "resurrect" them can simply move them back. This is not RCS. +1

Re: [users@httpd] RE: [ANNOUNCE] Apache HTTP Server 2.4.29 Released

Actually, that was in APR-util 1.6.1, see the APR release announcement and Craig's users@httpd post. On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Craig Young wrote: > I’m not sure if this is what is referred to in the Apache 2.4.29 > announcement, but please note that the Apache

Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen <i...@apachelounge.com> wrote: >> >> On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote: >> >> Can someone clean up the not need

Re: Thoughts on 2.5.0

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:45 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > Proceeding as documented and practiced, between trunk and 2.6.0 tag, > we operate under RTC until the committee adopts a rewritten policy. under CTR, of course :)

Re: Thoughts on 2.5.0

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> That's what commit-then-review means. If you failed to >> review it, you now have a six year knowledge gap and review to >> conduct. That's not sustainable, nobody at the project has that kind >> of time. > > "Review"

Re: Thoughts on 2.5.0

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:20 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >>> >>&g

[Proposal] 2.5.x -> 2.6.0/3.0.0 transition guidelines

I'd like to propose the following, so we can decide on what course to chart between here and there. Today we are at 2.5.0-dev, slated to become 2.5.0 non-GA release. Through a series of non-GA releases, 2.5.x is eventually approved to become the next 'evens' GA release. What we number that by

Re: Why tag 2.5.0? [Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today]

ose a project plan, > start a new thread without all that destructive crap I will not waste > any more time than this mail about. That's exactly what I did; On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:19 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > Is anyone seeing an issue of concern about s

Re: Thoughts on 2.5.0

I will preface by stating that you are referring to 2.6.0 or 3.0.0, our next GA, which is not yet what I've suggested on list. I'll start another thread on 2.5.0 development branch, and run with your discussion of the next GA... On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Jim Jagielski

Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen wrote: > > On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote: > > Can someone clean up the not needed anymore backports/branches > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/ > httpd 2.4.1 was tagged at r1243503. I'd propose

Re: Simplify download distribution directory by dropping sha1 hashes?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Luca Toscano <toscano.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2017-10-23 20:36 GMT+02:00 William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>: >> >> HTTPD team, >> >> Since our downloads are to be authenticated by their .asc PGP >> sign

Re: Why tag 2.5.0? [Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today]

Jim, you have very vocally and hostility reacted to *all* discussion of improving the release process at the httpd project. The project bylaws are clear, no individual PMC member may block a release (the PMC chair may, owing to the fact that they alone represent the board as the appointed VP,

Simplify download distribution directory by dropping sha1 hashes?

HTTPD team, Since our downloads are to be authenticated by their .asc PGP signatures, and the hashes simply serve as checksums, is it reasonable to offer only MD5 and SHA256 at this point? Anyone without SHA256 (rare, I'd expect) can use MD5 as the simplest supported checksum. All others should

Re: [users@httpd] [ANNOUNCE] Apache HTTP Server 2.4.29 Released

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:53 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> Apache HTTP Server 2.4.29 Released >> >> October 23, 2017 >> >> The Apache S

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >