Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Also all is fine with building against APR 1.2.7. Steffen - Original Message - From: Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 19:39 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA Done. I build against APR and APR-util 1.3.0 and the Perl scripts working now. Also no build error apu_version anymore. All tests passed here, including mod_perl and other common mods. Steffen http://www.apachelounge.com - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 18:07 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA Steffen wrote: When build Apache 2.2.1 with APR 1.2.2, the Perl scripts are working. This is apparent in my test case. Slowing things down in the debugger - the flaw goes away, which is to say some blocking logic isn't blocking, probably an attribute of some recent minor refactoring of the read_with_timeout logic. Could I ask to to try against APR 1.3 (trunk!) to see if this resolves your issues? And I'll do the same. Perhaps this is justification to backport the very major cleanups in Win32 read/write logic a bit early. The major refactoring has not been backported, just yet. Bill
pcre (was Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA)
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 02:47:22PM -0500, William Rowe wrote: It brings up a good question, which contributors are monitoring our flavor of pcre for updates from the pcre community, and liasoning back our changes to pcre to it's project? I would expect that anybody who commits local changes to srclib/pcre would also take care of getting said changes upstream. The vendor branch process is well-documented so anybody should feel free to merge new versions from upstream as and when they see fit (at least on the trunk). joe
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Done. I build against APR and APR-util 1.3.0 and the Perl scripts working now. Also no build error apu_version anymore. All tests passed here, including mod_perl and other common mods. Steffen http://www.apachelounge.comYeah it builds fine with APR and APR-util trunk, nothing was needed just builds.mod_perl and mod_security are both working. (build a normal binary and an optimized one, both work, optimized binaries gave some problems with 2.2.0)Build speed seem to have improved aswel, i went down to get a coke and was done when i got back! Compiler: Visual Studio .net 2005 Pro (out of box, no aditianal SDK's)-- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Compiler: Visual Studio .net 2005 Pro (out of box, no aditianal SDK's) FWIW, I'm focused on the Win64 fixes on trunk, backporting compatible changes to 2.2, and ignoring 2.0 for Win64. Of course you don't need any SDK's - they are included. For VS 6.0 users their headers are too far out of date. Studio .Net 2003/2005 users should certainly not need any updates. Actually someone just complained about not building correctly the apu ldap headers. That's not a surprise if using an old VC6 and stale headers.
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
So far I have two reports that mod_ssl is given issues. Strange, I tried it on three XP boxes and all is fine. The report is: error c005 at 6FD0F220 (mod_ssl). c005 is 'access violation'. Using FileMon, this appears to get triggered when trying to read in a server certificate. I removed the SSL portion of one virtual host and it then errored in trying to read the certificate for the first virtual host. Removing both SSL virtualhost portions allows the server to run fine. The configuration was copied in whole from a working 2.2.0 install Steffen - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 11:55 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Compiler: Visual Studio .net 2005 Pro (out of box, no aditianal SDK's) FWIW, I'm focused on the Win64 fixes on trunk, backporting compatible changes to 2.2, and ignoring 2.0 for Win64. Of course you don't need any SDK's - they are included. For VS 6.0 users their headers are too far out of date. Studio .Net 2003/2005 users should certainly not need any updates. Actually someone just complained about not building correctly the apu ldap headers. That's not a surprise if using an old VC6 and stale headers.
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Interesting, i'll give it another shot later today, 2.2.0 was comply totaled if trying as Win64.Making 2.0 Win64 compatible is to mutch work IMHO.Focusing on 2.2 is a great idea...I noted that i didn't have any SDK's installed because if you use the free edition of VC.net 2005 you need Platform SDK and some other tools to be able to compile (IIRC)On 4/7/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Compiler: Visual Studio .net 2005 Pro (out of box, no aditianal SDK's) FWIW, I'm focused on the Win64 fixes on trunk, backporting compatiblechanges to 2.2, and ignoring 2.0 for Win64.Of course you don't need any SDK's - they are included.For VS 6.0 userstheir headers are too far out of date.Studio .Net 2003/2005 users should certainly not need any updates.Actually someone just complained about not building correctly the apu ldapheaders.That's not a surprise if using an old VC6 and stale headers. -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Strange my SSL vhosts works fine.Don't get any errors.On 4/7/06, Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So far I have two reports that mod_ssl is given issues.Strange, I tried it on three XP boxes and all is fine. The report is:error c005 at 6FD0F220 (mod_ssl).c005 is 'access violation'.Using FileMon, this appears to get triggered when trying to read in a servercertificate. I removed the SSL portion of one virtual host and it then errored in trying to read the certificate for the first virtual host.Removing both SSL virtualhost portions allows the server to run fine. Theconfiguration was copied in whole from a working 2.2.0 install Steffen- Original Message -From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 11:55Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Compiler: Visual Studio .net 2005 Pro (out of box, no aditianal SDK's) FWIW, I'm focused on the Win64 fixes on trunk, backporting compatible changes to 2.2, and ignoring 2.0 for Win64. Of course you don't need any SDK's - they are included.For VS 6.0 users their headers are too far out of date.Studio .Net 2003/2005 users should certainly not need any updates. Actually someone just complained about not building correctly the apu ldap headers.That's not a surprise if using an old VC6 and stale headers.-- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Steffen wrote: So far I have two reports that mod_ssl is given issues. Strange, I tried it on three XP boxes and all is fine. The report is: error c005 at 6FD0F220 (mod_ssl). c005 is 'access violation'. Using FileMon, this appears to get triggered when trying to read in a server certificate. I removed the SSL portion of one virtual host and it then errored in trying to read the certificate for the first virtual host. You have odd NTFS rights on the certificate files? Joost
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Joost de Heer wrote: Steffen wrote: So far I have two reports that mod_ssl is given issues. Strange, I tried it on three XP boxes and all is fine. The report is: error c005 at 6FD0F220 (mod_ssl). c005 is 'access violation'. Using FileMon, this appears to get triggered when trying to read in a server certificate. I removed the SSL portion of one virtual host and it then errored in trying to read the certificate for the first virtual host. You have odd NTFS rights on the certificate files? That shouldn't cause a GPF. You said this was a working conf under 2.2.0? What OpenSSL flavor before / after? Hopefully you pass on .pdb files from the exact build you distribute, and the user can provide a meaningful Dr. Watson log. Unfortuantely there aren't any by default for OpenSSL, unless you hack in /debug /opt:ref into the release ldflags in place of /release, and /oy- /Zi into the release cflags of the openssl build. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Interesting, i'll give it another shot later today, 2.2.0 was comply totaled if trying as Win64. Yup, mostly hopeless back then. Making 2.0 Win64 compatible is to mutch work IMHO. Focusing on 2.2 is a great idea... Couple observations; pcre is quite LP64 dirty; this is observed under darwin x686 and win64. so don't necessarily expect 2.2.1 to build win64 clean yet out of the zip, and it may be a few more cycles before every issuees is resolved. It brings up a good question, which contributors are monitoring our flavor of pcre for updates from the pcre community, and liasoning back our changes to pcre to it's project?
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
I do not have the issue (now 3 reports at the Apachelounge), so I cannot give more info, here it was working fine. I build now with openssl 0.9.8b instead of 0.9.8a. And suprise, it is working now at that guys. I come back here when there are still issues. Steffen - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 21:44 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA Joost de Heer wrote: Steffen wrote: So far I have two reports that mod_ssl is given issues. Strange, I tried it on three XP boxes and all is fine. The report is: error c005 at 6FD0F220 (mod_ssl). c005 is 'access violation'. Using FileMon, this appears to get triggered when trying to read in a server certificate. I removed the SSL portion of one virtual host and it then errored in trying to read the certificate for the first virtual host. You have odd NTFS rights on the certificate files? That shouldn't cause a GPF. You said this was a working conf under 2.2.0? What OpenSSL flavor before / after? Hopefully you pass on .pdb files from the exact build you distribute, and the user can provide a meaningful Dr. Watson log. Unfortuantely there aren't any by default for OpenSSL, unless you hack in /debug /opt:ref into the release ldflags in place of /release, and /oy- /Zi into the release cflags of the openssl build. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On 4/7/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Making 2.0 Win64 compatible is to mutch work IMHO. Focusing on 2.2 is a great idea...Couple observations; pcre is quite LP64 dirty; this is observed underdarwin x686 and win64.so don't necessarily expect 2.2.1 to build win64clean yet out of the zip, and it may be a few more cycles before everyissuees is resolved.It doesn't hurt to try :) maybe some usefull info comes out of it. It brings up a good question, which contributors are monitoring ourflavor of pcre for updates from the pcre community, and liasoning back our changes to pcre to it's project?pcre... i know its in the srclib folder but what exactly does it do?-- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On 4/7/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Interesting, i'll give it another shot later today, 2.2.0 was comply totaled if trying as Win64.Yup, mostly hopeless back then. Making 2.0 Win64 compatible is to mutch work IMHO. Focusing on 2.2 is a great idea...Couple observations; pcre is quite LP64 dirty; this is observed underdarwin x686 and win64.so don't necessarily expect 2.2.1 to build win64clean yet out of the zip, and it may be a few more cycles before every issuees is resolved.It brings up a good question, which contributors are monitoring ourflavor of pcre for updates from the pcre community, and liasoning backour changes to pcre to it's project? Acutally it builds just fine without mod_ssl and mod_deflate...Ok lots of warnings... so thats not so good but it seems fine.stock config works fine,Dav seems to work aswel no go for 3rd party mods as was to be expected-- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: My thought is reroll aprutil, which i'll do tonight. The problem isn't with httpd; the problem's with the maintenance on two platforms, and that's what the release notes/CHANGES will say. Updated CHANGES. I'm also looking at the Win64 patch for apr-util before I roll, which I will commit first thing in the morning, and roll. The apr tree already has the Win64 flavor, and the WinNT flavor (which is only needed for 32 bit, NT-specific builds, and causes all the 9x exception code and tests to simply go away.) I believe 2.2.2 can ship w/ both Win64 and Win32 flavors, and now have the hardware and OS in place to check this out myself.
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
When build Apache 2.2.1 with APR 1.2.2, the Perl scripts are working. Steffen - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 05:17 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA Steffen wrote: Perl scripts with shebang line are not working on win32, get permature end of script headers error. Steffen, please clarify, is this a regression from 2.2.0 w/ APR 1.2.2? What's your ScriptInterpreterSource say? Bill
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Steffen wrote: When build Apache 2.2.1 with APR 1.2.2, the Perl scripts are working. This is apparent in my test case. Slowing things down in the debugger - the flaw goes away, which is to say some blocking logic isn't blocking, probably an attribute of some recent minor refactoring of the read_with_timeout logic. Could I ask to to try against APR 1.3 (trunk!) to see if this resolves your issues? And I'll do the same. Perhaps this is justification to backport the very major cleanups in Win32 read/write logic a bit early. The major refactoring has not been backported, just yet. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Done. I build against APR and APR-util 1.3.0 and the Perl scripts working now. Also no build error apu_version anymore. All tests passed here, including mod_perl and other common mods. Steffen http://www.apachelounge.com - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 18:07 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA Steffen wrote: When build Apache 2.2.1 with APR 1.2.2, the Perl scripts are working. This is apparent in my test case. Slowing things down in the debugger - the flaw goes away, which is to say some blocking logic isn't blocking, probably an attribute of some recent minor refactoring of the read_with_timeout logic. Could I ask to to try against APR 1.3 (trunk!) to see if this resolves your issues? And I'll do the same. Perhaps this is justification to backport the very major cleanups in Win32 read/write logic a bit early. The major refactoring has not been backported, just yet. Bill
[Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA]]
Letting the apr list ponder this suggestion. The code in question are the last four commits to http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/apr/apr/trunk/file_io/win32/readwrite.c which closed a ton of edge cases identified by different users who were doing various (non-httpd) things with apr networking. Comments on that list are welcome. Bill Original Message Subject: [Fwd: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA] Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 14:15:55 -0500 From: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrowe rowe-clan.net To: dev apr.apache.org My gut says let's push to the trunk code for readwrite.c including all of the refactoring, but I'll let others chime in, and also review the last four commits (in three parts). Bill Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 19:39:25 +0200 From: Steffen info apachelounge.com To: dev httpd.apache.org Done. I build against APR and APR-util 1.3.0 and the Perl scripts working now. Also no build error apu_version anymore. All tests passed here, including mod_perl and other common mods. Steffen http://www.apachelounge.com - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 18:07 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA Steffen wrote: When build Apache 2.2.1 with APR 1.2.2, the Perl scripts are working. This is apparent in my test case. Slowing things down in the debugger - the flaw goes away, which is to say some blocking logic isn't blocking, probably an attribute of some recent minor refactoring of the read_with_timeout logic. Could I ask to to try against APR 1.3 (trunk!) to see if this resolves your issues? And I'll do the same. Perhaps this is justification to backport the very major cleanups in Win32 read/write logic a bit early. The major refactoring has not been backported, just yet. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On 4/1/2006 at 12:28 pm, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2.2.1, embedding APR 1.2.6 and APR-Util 1.2.6, is available from: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Please Test and Vote on releasing 2.2.1 as GA. MD5s: f330230636926d08872d84343b08fa16 httpd-2.2.1.tar.bz2 63e7f3e24adda0888a48a247b4eb5613 httpd-2.2.1.tar.gz Thanks, Pau -1 NetWare Generating Release.o\Apache2_link.opt Linking Release.o/Apache2.nlm ### mwldnlm Linker Error: # Undefined symbol: apu_version_string in # main.o Errors caused tool to abort. gmake: *** [Release.o/Apache2.nlm] Error 1 Seems we have the same missing apu_version_string problem Brad
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On 4/3/2006 at 8:54:29 am, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/1/2006 at 12:28 pm, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2.2.1, embedding APR 1.2.6 and APR-Util 1.2.6, is available from: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Please Test and Vote on releasing 2.2.1 as GA. MD5s: f330230636926d08872d84343b08fa16 httpd-2.2.1.tar.bz2 63e7f3e24adda0888a48a247b4eb5613 httpd-2.2.1.tar.gz Thanks, Pau -1 NetWare Generating Release.o\Apache2_link.opt Linking Release.o/Apache2.nlm ### mwldnlm Linker Error: # Undefined symbol: apu_version_string in # main.o Errors caused tool to abort. gmake: *** [Release.o/Apache2.nlm] Error 1 Seems we have the same missing apu_version_string problem Brad SVN rev. 391070 resolves the issue for NetWare. Brad
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On 4/1/06, Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No go on win32: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _show_compile_settings .\Release/httpd.exe : fatal error LNK1120 This is fixed on APR 0.9 / 1.2 branches and 1.3 trunk. Brad's fixed this on 1.2 branch and 1.3 trunk - and I have a pending request to him to ensure it's fixed on 0.9 branch as well. My thought is reroll aprutil, which i'll do tonight. The problem isn't with httpd; the problem's with the maintenance on two platforms, and that's what the release notes/CHANGES will say. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
So does that mean if one grabs the 2.2.1 tar ball one will not be able to build on Windows? If so, that's not a very compelling tarball for those needing to support Windows. If 2.2.1 is being labeled as non-GA already then that's quite appropriate, move on to 2.2.2 as soon as possible. 2.2.1 shouldn't be labeled as GA if it does not build on Windows as is, though. -- Jess Holle William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: On 4/1/06, Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No go on win32: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _show_compile_settings .\Release/httpd.exe : fatal error LNK1120 This is fixed on APR 0.9 / 1.2 branches and 1.3 trunk. Brad's fixed this on 1.2 branch and 1.3 trunk - and I have a pending request to him to ensure it's fixed on 0.9 branch as well. My thought is reroll aprutil, which i'll do tonight. The problem isn't with httpd; the problem's with the maintenance on two platforms, and that's what the release notes/CHANGES will say. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Jess Holle wrote: So does that mean if one grabs the 2.2.1 tar ball one will not be able to build on Windows? Correct, but the 2.2.2 tarball will build on windows (with a bumped aprutil). That's why I think the concensus, between borked Win32/Netware and a missing proxy patch, is to reroll and get the 2.2.2 out immediately this week. Oh, my personal vote to the RM's tally is -1 (moving rapidly to 2.2.2). If so, that's not a very compelling tarball for those needing to support Windows. If 2.2.1 is being labeled as non-GA already then that's quite appropriate, move on to 2.2.2 as soon as possible. 2.2.1 shouldn't be labeled as GA if it does not build on Windows as is, though. 2.2.1 is labeled nothing right now, that's why the thread is [VOTE].
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On 2.2.0 (APR 1.2.2) it works ok. Using the same conf with 2.2.1 it gives the error, even the standard printenv.pl is the cgi-bin gives the error. Steffen - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 05:17 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA Steffen wrote: Perl scripts with shebang line are not working on win32, get permature end of script headers error. Steffen, please clarify, is this a regression from 2.2.0 w/ APR 1.2.2? What's your ScriptInterpreterSource say? Bill
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On 04/02/2006 02:40 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Ruediger Pluem wrote: Argh. It seems that http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=379237view=rev has not been backported. My fault not taking more care of this :-(. So I am now -1. Should I propose r379237 for backport? ++1 ! :) Proposed for backport as r390812. Sorry for not noticing earlier that this patch was missing :-(. Regards Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On 04/02/2006 05:19 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Can someone on win32 PLEASE update the .dsp file for apr-util? Glad to Does this mean that httpd 2.2.1 does not run with apr-util below 1.2.6 on windows? Is this desired? Regards Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 04:57:43PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 04/02/2006 05:19 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Can someone on win32 PLEASE update the .dsp file for apr-util? Glad to Does this mean that httpd 2.2.1 does not run with apr-util below 1.2.6 on windows? I implied that it meant that httpd 2.2.1 will have to wait until = 1.2.7 ships. Is this desired? Adding an ABI doesn't break ABI backwards-compat, so it should be o.k. -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On 04/02/2006 05:06 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: Adding an ABI doesn't break ABI backwards-compat, so it should be o.k. But httpd 2.2.1 would not compile with apr-util below 1.2.7 on windows. So I guess this part of the code should be conditional and only active either on non windows (BTW: anyone tested if other non UNIX OS are affected by this? Netware?) or if apr-util = 1.2.7 as I remember myself that httpd 2.2.x should compile with any apr / apr-util 1.2.x. Regards Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 05:17:00PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 04/02/2006 05:06 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: Adding an ABI doesn't break ABI backwards-compat, so it should be o.k. But httpd 2.2.1 would not compile with apr-util below 1.2.7 on windows. That's allowed I think, and I think there are precendents for that too, it's only ABI compatibility for modules that we have to worry about. So I guess this part of the code should be conditional and only active either on non windows (BTW: anyone tested if other non UNIX OS are affected by this? Netware?) or if apr-util = 1.2.7 as I remember myself that httpd 2.2.x should compile with any apr / apr-util 1.2.x. We could ifdef it for that easily enough, so that's a good idea :) -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 04/02/2006 05:19 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Can someone on win32 PLEASE update the .dsp file for apr-util? Glad to Does this mean that httpd 2.2.1 does not run with apr-util below 1.2.6 on windows? Is this desired? IMHO - this was an outright Win32-specific bug on all versions of apr-util since apu_version_get was introduced :-/ Unfortunately, as someone hinted on the #apr channel, it sometimes seems like until a new API is adopted by the httpd project, it's rarely exercised elsewhere :( AFA version mismatches, I see no issue; nobody could possibly run half the 1.2 versions of apr with httpd on OS/X - due to the poll/kqueue issues on and off throughout the development of that branch and the platform's quirks. Is this a huge issue? I doubt it. Almost anyone obtaining httpd.exe obtains a libapr.dll/libaprutil.dll in the same package/binaries/installer. So this can't really become a big issue. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 05:17:00PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 04/02/2006 05:06 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: Adding an ABI doesn't break ABI backwards-compat, so it should be o.k. But httpd 2.2.1 would not compile with apr-util below 1.2.7 on windows. That's allowed I think, and I think there are precendents for that too, it's only ABI compatibility for modules that we have to worry about. Yea - it's allowed. When we decided on 'binary compatibility', we effectively limited ourselves from updating httpd-2.0 to run on apr-1 instead of apr-0.9. how many features in the evolution of httpd-2.0.x require the incremental releases of apr-0.9.x? OTOH - we can't jump to apr-1, reason being that many folks build third party addins to httpd which require predictable, binary compatibility from subversion bump to bump. So to avoid breaking third party modules, we won't be able to jump from apr-1 to, say, apr-2 until a later httpd-2.x verison. So I guess this part of the code should be conditional and only active either on non windows (BTW: anyone tested if other non UNIX OS are affected by this? Netware?) or if apr-util = 1.2.7 as I remember myself that httpd 2.2.x should compile with any apr / apr-util 1.2.x. We could ifdef it for that easily enough, so that's a good idea :) Nah, this was a platform bug all the time on Windows. So they weren't building an acceptable package that matched our doxygen documented api. True? Bill
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 11:28:15AM -0800, Paul Querna wrote: 2.2.1, embedding APR 1.2.6 and APR-Util 1.2.6, is available from: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ m Please Test and Vote on releasing 2.2.1 as GA. +1, passes all tests on ubuntu. -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
+1: OS X 10.4.5 (gcc4 and gcc3) +1: Solaris 8 (gcc3) Passes all perl-framework tests On Apr 1, 2006, at 2:28 PM, Paul Querna wrote: 2.2.1, embedding APR 1.2.6 and APR-Util 1.2.6, is available from: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Please Test and Vote on releasing 2.2.1 as GA. MD5s: f330230636926d08872d84343b08fa16 httpd-2.2.1.tar.bz2 63e7f3e24adda0888a48a247b4eb5613 httpd-2.2.1.tar.gz Thanks, Paul
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 11:28:15AM -0800, Paul Querna wrote: 2.2.1, embedding APR 1.2.6 and APR-Util 1.2.6, is available from: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Please Test and Vote on releasing 2.2.1 as GA. Tests ok on Solaris 10 (U2-beta, sunstudio) vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
No go on win32: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _show_compile_settings .\Release/httpd.exe : fatal error LNK1120 Steffen - Original Message - From: Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 21:28 Subject: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA 2.2.1, embedding APR 1.2.6 and APR-Util 1.2.6, is available from: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Please Test and Vote on releasing 2.2.1 as GA. MD5s: f330230636926d08872d84343b08fa16 httpd-2.2.1.tar.bz2 63e7f3e24adda0888a48a247b4eb5613 httpd-2.2.1.tar.gz Thanks, Paul
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
lördagen den 1 april 2006 21.28 skrev Paul Querna: 2.2.1, embedding APR 1.2.6 and APR-Util 1.2.6, is available from: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Please Test and Vote on releasing 2.2.1 as GA. MD5s: f330230636926d08872d84343b08fa16 httpd-2.2.1.tar.bz2 63e7f3e24adda0888a48a247b4eb5613 httpd-2.2.1.tar.gz Thanks, Paul I get these failed tests with perl-framework (r390750) on Mandriva Linux: Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/ssl/proxy.t 172 58 33.72% 3 8-9 12-13 16-17 20-21 24-25 28- 29 32-33 36-37 40-41 44-45 48-49 52-53 56-57 115-116 118-120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 152 154 156 159-160 163-164 167-168 171- 172 -- Regards // Oden Eriksson Mandriva: http://www.mandriva.com NUX: http://li.nux.se
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On 04/01/2006 09:28 PM, Paul Querna wrote: 2.2.1, embedding APR 1.2.6 and APR-Util 1.2.6, is available from: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Please Test and Vote on releasing 2.2.1 as GA. +1, compiled and started on RHAS 3 update 3, gcc 3.2.3, glibc 2.3.2, kernel 2.4.21 RHAS 4 update 2, gcc 3.4.4, glibc 2.3.4, kernel 2.6.9 SuSE Linux 8.1, gcc 3.2.2, glibc 2.2.5, kernel 2.4.21
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On 4/1/06, Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No go on win32: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _show_compile_settings .\Release/httpd.exe : fatal error LNK1120 Didn't a Windows guy make that change? (duck)
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
On 04/01/2006 11:24 PM, Oden Eriksson wrote: I get these failed tests with perl-framework (r390750) on Mandriva Linux: Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/ssl/proxy.t 172 58 33.72% 3 8-9 12-13 16-17 20-21 24-25 28- 29 32-33 36-37 40-41 44-45 48-49 52-53 56-57 115-116 118-120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 152 154 156 159-160 163-164 167-168 171- 172 Argh. It seems that http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=379237view=rev has not been backported. My fault not taking more care of this :-(. So I am now -1. Should I propose r379237 for backport? Regards Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
söndagen den 2 april 2006 00.32 skrev Ruediger Pluem: On 04/01/2006 11:24 PM, Oden Eriksson wrote: I get these failed tests with perl-framework (r390750) on Mandriva Linux: Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed - -- t/ssl/proxy.t 172 58 33.72% 3 8-9 12-13 16-17 20-21 24-25 28- 29 32-33 36-37 40-41 44-45 48-49 52-53 56-57 115-116 118-120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 152 154 156 159-160 163-164 167-168 171- 172 Argh. It seems that http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=379237view=rev has not been backported. My fault not taking more care of this :-(. So I am now -1. Should I propose r379237 for backport? That fixed it for me. -- Regards // Oden Eriksson Mandriva: http://www.mandriva.com NUX: http://li.nux.se
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
In the Change log: *) Add APR/APR-Util Compiled and Runtime Version numbers to the output of 'httpd -V'. [William Rowe] After removing this in main.c then it builds fine with VC2005 Steffen - Original Message - From: Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 00:29 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA On 4/1/06, Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No go on win32: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _show_compile_settings .\Release/httpd.exe : fatal error LNK1120 Didn't a Windows guy make that change? (duck)
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Perl scripts with shebang line are not working on win32, get permature end of script headers error. Btw. mod_perl is working fine. Steffen http://www.apachelounge.com - Original Message - From: Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 21:28 Subject: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA 2.2.1, embedding APR 1.2.6 and APR-Util 1.2.6, is available from: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Please Test and Vote on releasing 2.2.1 as GA. MD5s: f330230636926d08872d84343b08fa16 httpd-2.2.1.tar.bz2 63e7f3e24adda0888a48a247b4eb5613 httpd-2.2.1.tar.gz Thanks, Paul
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Jeff Trawick wrote: On 4/1/06, Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No go on win32: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _show_compile_settings .\Release/httpd.exe : fatal error LNK1120 Didn't a Windows guy make that change? (duck) It looks like this is because apu_version.c is not even present in the Win32 build system. libaprutil.dsp doesn't mention it at all. Can someone on win32 PLEASE update the .dsp file for apr-util? Thanks, -Paul
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Oden Eriksson wrote: I get these failed tests with perl-framework (r390750) on Mandriva Linux: =46ailed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed =2D= =2D- t/ssl/proxy.t 172 58 33.72% 3 8-9 12-13 16-17 20-21 24-25 = 28- 29 32-33 36-37 40-41 44-45 48-= 49 52-53 56-57 115-116 118-120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 152 154 156 159-160 163-164 167-168 17= 1- 172 Hmmm... I don't have ssl on my test OS X and Sol systems. But I'm guessing it's related to SNV Rev 379237 -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Ruediger Pluem wrote: Argh. It seems that http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=379237view=rev has not been backported. My fault not taking more care of this :-(. So I am now -1. Should I propose r379237 for backport? ++1 ! :) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Steffen wrote: Perl scripts with shebang line are not working on win32, get permature end of script headers error. Steffen, please clarify, is this a regression from 2.2.0 w/ APR 1.2.2? What's your ScriptInterpreterSource say? Bill
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
Paul Querna wrote: Jeff Trawick wrote: On 4/1/06, Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No go on win32: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _show_compile_settings .\Release/httpd.exe : fatal error LNK1120 Outch Didn't a Windows guy make that change? (duck) You think I develop on Win32? chuckle/ Actually this patch was introduced primarily for how mismatched things are getting with many projects potentially dropping in some libapr[util].so's onto user's machines. Didn't even ponder the issue on Win32. It looks like this is because apu_version.c is not even present in the Win32 build system. libaprutil.dsp doesn't mention it at all. That would be a problem Can someone on win32 PLEASE update the .dsp file for apr-util? Glad to
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
VC++ 2005 (plus msdev.exe) from the command line (makefile.win); OpenSSL 0.98a, manual manifest embedding. main.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _show_compile_settings Release/httpd.exe : fatal error LNK1120: 1 unresolved externals Error executing link.exe. no problems after removing the reference to that function. mod_authn_alias mod_authz_owner were not built. -- Gustavo Lopes
