Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
* It's been running on mail-archives.apache.org with fewer than X
cores (with X tending to 0)
I don't know if I'm able to check this point on my own : where do
coredumps go ? Do I have enough access rights to check for them ?
Anyway, since my last fixes against core dumps, you did not report any
of them.
I was going to chime in saying that there were no recent cores, but then
we had one this morning ;-(. Details below. But anyway, I think things
look pretty good given the substantial volume of traffic that mod_mbox
serves, including search engines that tend to tickle every obscure
messages and links.
For the coredump, the request was
"GET
/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200507.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
HTTP/1.1"
and the full backtrace:
#0 0x2000000000594940 in strstr () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6.1
No symbol table info available.
#1 0x2000000001020630 in mbox_mime_decode_multipart (p=0x60000000004b93a8,
body=0x3ffffffffef45b97 <Address 0x3ffffffffef45b97 out of bounds>,
ct=0x60000000003d05c8 "text/plain", cte=CTE_7BIT, boundary=0x0)
at mod_mbox_mime.c:34
mail = (mbox_mime_message_t *) 0x60000000002e0f90
tmp = 0xc000000000000590 <Address 0xc000000000000590 out of bounds>
k = 0x60000000003d0000 "ยจ\223K"
end_bound = 0x200000000102b9a0 "\n\n"
#2 0x200000000101cf20 in mbox_static_message (r=0x60000000004b9418,
f=0x60000000003d0000) at mod_mbox_out.c:1100
conf = (mbox_dir_cfg_t *) 0x60000000002e0a28
m = (Message *) 0x60000000003d03e8
baseURI = 0x60000000003d00b0 "/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200507.mbox"
from = 0xc00000000000038e <Address 0xc00000000000038e out of
bounds>
context = (char **) 0x60000000004bb217
msgID = 0x60000000004bb217 "<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
#3 0x2000000001018b50 in mbox_file_handler (r=0x60000000004b9418)
at mod_mbox_file.c:231
f = (apr_file_t *) 0x60000000003d0000
fi = {pool = 0x60000000004b93a8, valid = 7598448, protection =
1604,
filetype = APR_REG, user = 504, group = 5034, inode = 3408325,
device = 2065, nlink = 1, size = 13317914, csize = 4294967296,
atime = 1129164697000000, mtime = 1123654438000000,
ctime = 1128692829000000,
fname = 0x60000000003076c8
"/x1/mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200507.mbox", name =
0x0, filehand = 0x0}
status = 4953400
#4 0x400000000004fd70 in ap_run_handler (r=0x60000000004b9418) at
config.c:158
* It can be built against httpd release 2.{0,2}.y without
modifications to either httpd, mod_mbox source code or build files
We got this point.
* There is documentation that allows a user (as opposed to the
person who wrote the code) to install it and get started serving
mail archives
Documentation is currently inexistant, but if we choose to make a
mod_mbox release, I could do it in the next few hours. I still have my
.xml file from my last failed attempt on providing documentation (it
was rejected because mod_mbox was not part of the main distribution).
* There are Z number of open bugs in Bugzilla against the module and
T of those need to be fixed before we can release, while U of them
can be waived
Altough ASF's Bugzilla does not have a 'mod_mbox' project and no bugs
are currently reported for mod_mbox to the Apache-2.x bugzilla
project, the STATUS file is kinda verbose on known bugs and
incompatibilities.
But the fact is that we came to a running mod_mbox (server side) and
browser incompatibilities are avoided by deactivating the dynamic
browser if the client is not compatible.
S. (and why 0.2, why not 1.0? What are the criteria for 1.0?)
That's why I only want to call it 0.2 and not 1.0. Because a 0.3 will
come in the next months I hope to fix these problems and improve the
thing. I don't think we should call it 1.0 until we make the dynamic
browser work everywhere. Google makes it for every single
bleeding-edge web-based application they do, why not us ?
Thanks for the reply,
- Sam
