Re: The drive for 2.4.26

There was a delay in doing the T due to an issue that was being investigated. This looks resolved now. With that, I plan on doing a T& today at ~1:30pm (Eastern) unless someone else wishes to RM.

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Still looking at a T today... I will RM unless someone else would like to do so!

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Perfect... I propose a T on Monday... comments? +1. Many will have noticed already, but apr 1.6.2 and apr-util-1.6.0 vote threads were just spawned to be tallied 13:00 UTC Monday.

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

to:stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de] >>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. Juni 2017 10:40 >>>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org >>>> Betreff: Re: The drive for 2.4.26 >>>> >>>> Proposed the patch as fix, since we did not see the behaviour pop up >>>

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

>> >> >>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- >>> Von: Stefan Eissing [mailto:stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de] >>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. Juni 2017 10:40 >>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org >>> Betreff: Re: The drive for 2.4.26 >>> >>>

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

;> An: dev@httpd.apache.org >> Betreff: Re: The drive for 2.4.26 >> >> Proposed the patch as fix, since we did not see the behaviour pop up >> again over the last days at Steffen's system. >> >> I assume the RTC is in place now. > > My personal opinio

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Proposed the patch as fix, since we did not see the behaviour pop up again over the last days at Steffen's system. I assume the RTC is in place now. -Stefan > Am 06.06.2017 um 09:26 schrieb Stefan Eissing : > > I made a patch on Friday evening for Steffen's

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

I made a patch on Friday evening for Steffen's system where the behaviour happens. Hope to hear back from him today. -Stefan > Am 06.06.2017 um 03:12 schrieb Eric Covener : > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: >> I have

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > I have one report of a CPU busy loop that seems to only happen on the last 3 > changes in mod_http2. Steffen is currently testing if a feature disable > solves the problem and thus points to the cause. I hope

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

The suggestion is to push out any 2.4 release indefinately for an experimental feature which is promoted in another thread for promotion to a GA designation? Just a sanity check of my sense of irony :) On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 6:59 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I think we should

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

I think we should wait on a T to resolve this issue... > On May 30, 2017, at 9:12 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: > > I have one report of a CPU busy loop that seems to only happen on the last 3 > changes in mod_http2. Steffen is currently testing if a feature

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 05/29/2017 10:52 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: >> >> Jan Ehrhardt in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Tue, 30 May 2017 07:13:41 >> +0200): >>> >>> Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Mon, 29 May 2017 15:42:46 +0200): >>>

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Steffen wrote: > > Btw. > Cmake is now Windows only, is that the goal ? No; however the autoconf works so well on such a broad assortment of Unix distributions that we haven't found a lot of motivation to fully instrument the cmake lists

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

On 05/29/2017 10:52 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: Jan Ehrhardt in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Tue, 30 May 2017 07:13:41 +0200): Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Mon, 29 May 2017 15:42:46 +0200): Cmake is now Windows only, is that the goal ? In what way is it Windows only? To answer my own

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Still not working mod_proxy_http2 with larger responses. >>> Still wrong with >>> ProxyPass / h2c://127.0.0.1:80/ >>> ProxyPassReverse / http://127.0.0.1:80/ >>> Latest/former answer from Stefan was on this error was: >>> Thanks for testing. As I read your logs, the mod_proxy_http2 does not

r1792092 (Was: Re: The drive for 2.4.26)

Eric just noted that one viable backport hasn't been proposed yet... Jean-Frederic, can you confirm that r1792092 is something you'd like to see in 2.4.x? Other than the field addition to the struct, the change looks v. self-contained.

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Reminder: No mod_session_crypto with apr & apr-util 1.5 and Openssl 1.1.0. With not released apr & apr-util 1.6 all fine. > Op 30 mei 2017 om 14:57 heeft Jim Jagielski het volgende > geschreven: > > It looks like all the "easy and safe" backports have been > submitted and

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> It looks like all the "easy and safe" backports have been >> submitted and then committed. I am hesitant to stir things >> up anymore and think

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

I have one report of a CPU busy loop that seems to only happen on the last 3 changes in mod_http2. Steffen is currently testing if a feature disable solves the problem and thus points to the cause. I hope to hear from him tomorrow sometime during the day if that addresses the issue or not.

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > It looks like all the "easy and safe" backports have been > submitted and then committed. I am hesitant to stir things > up anymore and think that this week is our luck week for a > T of 2.4.26. > > Comments? Feedback? +1,

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

It looks like all the "easy and safe" backports have been submitted and then committed. I am hesitant to stir things up anymore and think that this week is our luck week for a T of 2.4.26. Comments? Feedback?

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Jan Ehrhardt in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Tue, 30 May 2017 07:13:41 +0200): >Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Mon, 29 May 2017 15:42:46 +0200): > >> Cmake is now Windows only, is that the goal ? > >In what way is it Windows only? To answer my own question: because of the use of specific Windows

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Hi Rainer, Rainer Jung in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Mon, 29 May 2017 15:00:45 +0200): >What is this "slight modification"? Steffen showed me that these modifications aren't needed with the CMake option -DENABLE_MODULES=i -- Jan

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Mon, 29 May 2017 15:42:46 +0200): >Here only : > >-- Modules not built: >-- mod_socache_dc >-- mod_charset_lite >-- Configuring done > >Building with: >cmake -G "NMake Makefiles" -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=C:\Apache24 >-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Hi Rainer, Rainer Jung in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Mon, 29 May 2017 15:00:45 +0200): >Am 29.05.2017 um 10:54 schrieb Jan Ehrhardt: >> If you really need one of these modules, with a slight modification of >> CMakeLists.txt these can be built as well. Only real exception: >> mod_socache_dc does

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Here only : -- Modules not built: -- mod_socache_dc -- mod_charset_lite -- Configuring done Building with: cmake -G "NMake Makefiles" -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=C:\Apache24 -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DENABLE_MODULES=i -DINSTALL_MANUAL=OFF -DINSTALL_PDB=OFF ..\..\src\httpd-2.4.26

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Hi Jan, Am 29.05.2017 um 10:54 schrieb Jan Ehrhardt: Rainer Jung in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Sun, 28 May 2017 23:20:35 +0200): Due to quick votes from the team this has now been committed in r1796539 for 2.4.26. Thanks. I checked woth the 2.4.x branch, built on Windows with CMake/VC14 (plus

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Rainer Jung in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Sun, 28 May 2017 23:20:35 +0200): >Due to quick votes from the team this has now been committed in r1796539 >for 2.4.26. Thanks. I checked woth the 2.4.x branch, built on Windows with CMake/VC14 (plus APR 1.6 and OpenSSL 1.1.0) and the patch works OK.

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Am 28.05.2017 um 16:16 schrieb Rainer Jung: Am 28.05.2017 um 13:13 schrieb Jan Ehrhardt: Rainer Jung in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:29:38 +0200): ... In addition I noticed the following glitch: ... The "-m" option is independent of SSL use and should be handled outside of

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Hi, On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 8:38 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: > Hi Luca, > > Am 27.05.2017 um 09:10 schrieb Luca Toscano: >> Hi Jim, >> >> 2017-05-25 14:23 GMT+02:00 Jim Jagielski > >: >> >> Until a proposal in in

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Hi Luca, Am 27.05.2017 um 09:10 schrieb Luca Toscano: > Hi Jim, > > 2017-05-25 14:23 GMT+02:00 Jim Jagielski >: > > Until a proposal in in STATUS (and apologies if it is), its > suitability for 2.4.x is a big unknown. > > > you are

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Am 28.05.2017 um 13:13 schrieb Jan Ehrhardt: Rainer Jung in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:29:38 +0200): Thanks for the analysis. So the following patch on trunk works for me when using OpenSSL 1.0.1e (on Solaris 10): Index: support/ab.c

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Rainer Jung in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:29:38 +0200): >Thanks for the analysis. So the following patch on trunk works for me >when using OpenSSL 1.0.1e (on Solaris 10): > >Index: support/ab.c >=== >---

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Hi Jim, 2017-05-25 14:23 GMT+02:00 Jim Jagielski : > Until a proposal in in STATUS (and apologies if it is), its > suitability for 2.4.x is a big unknown. you are completely right, afaik the last patch tested by Stefan Priebe was

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Until a proposal in in STATUS (and apologies if it is), its suitability for 2.4.x is a big unknown. > On May 24, 2017, at 12:42 PM, Luca Toscano wrote: > > > > 2017-05-22 16:35 GMT+02:00 Jim Jagielski : > I think we are *really* close! What say we try

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

2017-05-22 16:35 GMT+02:00 Jim Jagielski : > I think we are *really* close! What say we try for a T > sometime this week? > > Who wants to RM? If no one does, I will. > One last thing! :) I am wondering if we could think about reviewing/backporting to 2.4.x the code that Yann

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Yes it did, thanks for following up. On 5/22/2017 9:23 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: On 04/20/2017 01:06 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 1750960 $> Same result with trunk, it just hangs. Glad it's not just Windows! Gregg, did Rainer's patch work for you on

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

On 04/20/2017 01:06 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 1750960 $> Same result with trunk, it just hangs. Glad it's not just Windows! Gregg, did Rainer's patch work for you on Windows? Looks like it hasn't been pushed into trunk yet, so I'll apply it today and

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

I think we are *really* close! What say we try for a T sometime this week? Who wants to RM? If no one does, I will.

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Rainer Jung in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:29:38 +0200): >Thanks for the analysis. So the following patch on trunk works for me >when using OpenSSL 1.0.1e (on Solaris 10): > >Index: support/ab.c >=== >---

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

On May 2, 2017 4:35 AM, "Steffen" wrote: Nothing w.r.t. OSSL 1.1.x with 1.5.x apr will work, nor would 2.5.25 > ( does w.r.t means: with respect to ? ) Again Bill, please be accurate: mod_ssl with OSSL 1.1 and 1.5 apr works ! Just build and tested it: [Tue May 02

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

2.4.x/bin APR_INCLUDEDIR=/opt/apache-2.4.x/include APR_CONFIG=/opt/apache-2.4.x/bin/apr-1-config > So, where do we differ? > >> -Original Message- From: William A Rowe Jr >> Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 8:24 AM >> To: httpd >> Subject: Re: The drive for 2.4.26 >

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

May 02 11:36:53.464353 2017] [core:notice] [pid 1799:tid 140736644027328] AH00094: Command line: '/opt/apache-2.4.x/bin/httpd -d /Users/sei/projects/httpd/test/mod_h2/2.4.x/gen/apache' So, where do we differ? > -Original Message----- From: William A Rowe Jr > Sent: Tuesday, May 2

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

AH03090: mod_http2 (v1.10.3, feats=, nghttp2 1.21.1), initializing... [Tue May 02 11:23:54.365670 2017] [mpm_winnt:notice] [pid 3948:tid 652] AH00354: Child: Starting 64 worker threads -Original Message- From: William A Rowe Jr Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 8:24 AM To: httpd Subject: Re:

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Very sorry Steffen, I really appreciate your effort, and enthusiasm, I read this as a direct reply to one of my notes. Blaiming my email app threading for the confusion, thanks for reconfirming to Gregg. OSSL can't work against 1.5 APR nor 2.4.25 but I hope we have it all sorted for the next

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

> Am 02.05.2017 um 10:02 schrieb Steffen : > > Gregg was wondering in one of his latest posts if this issues are still there > after his commits , so I checked it and reported back here. > > Sorry for my posts dear Bill, looks you do not like them. You suggest that I >

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Gregg was wondering in one of his latest posts if this issues are still there after his commits , so I checked it and reported back here. Sorry for my posts dear Bill, looks you do not like them. You suggest that I stop reporting here. Next time I wait when RC tarballs are available. I respect

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Steffen wrote: > Resume: With next 2.4 we have two not working with 1.1. namely abs.exe with > apr 1.6 and mod_session_crypto with 1.5. Nothing w.r.t. OSSL 1.1.x with 1.5.x apr will work, nor would 2.5.25, so tell us something we don't

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Resume: With next 2.4 we have two not working with 1.1. namely abs.exe with apr 1.6 and mod_session_crypto with 1.5. > Op 2 mei 2017 om 07:37 heeft William A Rowe Jr het > volgende geschreven: > >> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Steffen wrote: >>

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Steffen wrote: > No mod_session_crypto with apr & apr-util 1.5 and Openssl 1.1.0, error in > Apr: > > ErrorC2079'cipherCtx' uses undefined struct 'evp_cipher_ctx_st' > apr_crypto_openssl >

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

all fine. -Original Message- From: Gregg Smith Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 12:53 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: The drive for 2.4.26 Yes, and only with the legacy build and then only with the IDE. Those files are static. If you build at the command line it should "just work.&q

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Yes, and only with the legacy build and then only with the IDE. Those files are static. If you build at the command line it should "just work." When I built with apr 1.5 however apr_crypto_openssl would not build with openssl 1.1.0. I cannot see how that has changed.. On 4/29/2017 1:42 AM,

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

On Apr 29, 2017 12:16 PM, "Gregg Smith" wrote: Once APR 1.6 is released my plan is to make the change permanent next 2.4.x then making the need for that conversion unneeded. Openssl 1.0.2 is good till sometime in 2019, even 1.1.0 eol's before it does so we're stuck w/ cvtdsp.pl

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

APR 1.6 is needed for apr_crypto_openssl, obviously. ABS: Not sure. When I originally tried building w/ APR 1.5 it didn't work, but it didn't work with OpenSSL 1.1 and APR 1.6 either. That has now been fixed by Rainer. Have not tried 1.5/1.1.0 w/ abs yet so I simply don't know. Feel free to

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Also no issue with apr_crypto_openssl and mod_session crypto ? Begin Message Group: gmane.comp.apache.devel MsgID: Is this a Windows issue? I built with 1.1.0e on MacOS and apr 1.5 and saw no problems. >Am

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Is this a Windows issue? I built with 1.1.0e on MacOS and apr 1.5 and saw no problems. > Am 28.04.2017 um 22:26 schrieb Steffen : > > I doubt now. It was based on a note in cvtdsp.pl. > > Maybe it is only a .dsp and xml change, which I can apply to 1.5. > > Maybe

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

I doubt now. It was based on a note in cvtdsp.pl. Maybe it is only a .dsp and xml change, which I can apply to 1.5. Maybe Gregg can shed some light on this ? > Op 28 apr. 2017 om 22:16 heeft William A Rowe Jr het > volgende geschreven: > > Now that these are

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Now that these are independent of one another, I think we can release before 1.6.x are released. We should just call out "New: OpenSSL 1.1.0 support! (Upcoming APR 1.6.x is required for this support.) On Apr 28, 2017 2:56 PM, "Steffen" wrote: > When with apr & apr-until

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

When with apr & apr-until 1.6 fine even more cooler. Otherwise OpenSSL 1.1 not supported. For OpenSSL 1.1 we need apr & apr-util 1.6 to build (e.g apr_crypto_openssl for mod_session crypto) > Op 28 apr. 2017 om 14:14 heeft Jim Jagielski het volgende > geschreven: > >

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

It would be cool to have 2.4.26 released by ApacheCon, or even by OSCON. There are, last I checked, 2 showstoppers on list for 2.4.26... Anyway we could address them and shoot for a T maybe next Weds?

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Am 20.04.2017 um 21:23 schrieb Jacob Champion: On 04/20/2017 07:31 AM, Gregg Smith wrote: ABS doesn't work with openssl 1.1.0, on windows anyway. It builds without warning yet doesn't work. abs https://www.domain.com just sits there forever and never completes or shows anything. I cannot

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 1750960 $> Same result with trunk, it just hangs. Glad it's not just Windows! On 4/20/2017 9:48 AM, Rainer Jung wrote: Am 20.04.2017 um 16:31 schrieb Gregg Smith: ABS doesn't work with openssl 1.1.0, on windows anyway. It builds without warning yet

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

On 04/20/2017 07:31 AM, Gregg Smith wrote: ABS doesn't work with openssl 1.1.0, on windows anyway. It builds without warning yet doesn't work. abs https://www.domain.com just sits there forever and never completes or shows anything. I cannot imagine this being a windows only problem. I

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Am 20.04.2017 um 16:31 schrieb Gregg Smith: ABS doesn't work with openssl 1.1.0, on windows anyway. It builds without warning yet doesn't work. abs https://www.domain.com just sits there forever and never completes or shows anything. I cannot imagine this being a windows only problem. Any

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

ABS doesn't work with openssl 1.1.0, on windows anyway. It builds without warning yet doesn't work. abs https://www.domain.com just sits there forever and never completes or shows anything. I cannot imagine this being a windows only problem. On 4/20/2017 3:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: We are

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

We are very, very close to being in a releasable state... looks like just 1 show-stopper. If we also want to wait until APR 1.6 is released, we can also look at having redis/memcached parity in socache as well, which would be good for 2.4.26... Thoughts? PS: it would be great to have this out by

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Nice work, looking forward to seeing this backported! > Am 10.04.2017 um 18:24 schrieb Evgeny Kotkov : > > Jim Jagielski writes: > >> Let's shoot for a 2.4.26 within the next handful of >> weeks. There are some entries in STATUS that could >> use

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Jim Jagielski writes: > Let's shoot for a 2.4.26 within the next handful of > weeks. There are some entries in STATUS that could > use some love and attention, and I'm hoping/pushing > for a Brotli[1] release so we can fold *that* capability > in as well. > > 1.

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Let's shoot for a 2.4.26 within the next handful of > weeks. ++1 - my only question is whether we can get an apr[-util] release in the next week or two ahead of our release, to encourage users to update their entire stack?