Re: [OT] cvs guru wanted
copying it in the repository should actually just work - I don't remember any extra steps for moving something to a different dir * Guenter Knauf [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-15 17:45]: Hi, does somebody know if its possible to move a file from one dir to another without loosing the history? thanks, Guenter. -- Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
[henning@openbsd.org: no more apache updates]
FYI - Forwarded message from Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: no more apache updates Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 15:48:36 +0200 The apache we ship with OpenBSD will stay at version 1.3.29. We will fix bugs, but there won't be any updates any more. 1.3.31 has been released under their new license which is less free than the previous one, and this is not acceptable. You know whom to complain to. - End forwarded message -
Re: Time for 1.3.30??
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-18 15:45]: I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish. Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0. I have hughe problems with the new license. What exactly is the point of replacing the BSD-style old license that entirely works off the grounds of copyright law by this new beast that requires a bazillion of lawyers to parse and almost certainly goes into contract law? i will not import any code under the new apache license into openbsd. if that means we have to fork 1.3.29, then so it be, even though that is not the option i prefer. very sad. -- Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
Re: consider reopening 1.3
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 05:02:12PM -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: And a threaded mpm is just not an option. Most humans are simply not smart enough to write threadsafe code. this is an interesting point. I believe the moving towards threading is wrong. I also find apache2 strongly suspective for the simple size. 1.3 is already bad, but the code size of 2.0 scares me. and honestly, I don't care for windows or netware support. what remains is a IMHO overcomplicated architecture with much too much code, which makes it hard to audit, and gives no benefit to our users. I don't see me importing apache2 into the OpenBSD tree anytime soon. honestly, I don't see that at all. -- Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
Re: Review then Commit discussion
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 03:44:48PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: FWIW I agree with Jeff here. I retracted the statement since JimJ, Cliff and Aaron all seem to want to err on the side of C-T-R. So count this R-T-C: Jeff, Will C-T-R: JimJ, Cliff, Aaron More voices are always welcome. I don't get your problem with R-T-C. we're doing so for all branches in OpenBSD. our stable branches have maintainers, so if someone fixes a bug he thinks should go to stable he sends it to the stable maintainer and he checks again before commiting. I do not see any developent slowdown due to R-T-C, but just a quality improvement. -- Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
Re: httpd-2.0.43-alpha candidates available...
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 07:59:19AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: [x] release 2.0.43 GA as is
Re: [PATCH] 1.3 NET_SIZE_T is socklen_t on OpenBSD
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 07:12:56AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: +#define NET_SIZE_T socklen_t Does this hold for every level of OpenBSD, or is a version check necessary? all versions = 2.6 have socklen_t. Given that We don't support anything below 3.0 any more... ;-) You could add a #if (OpenBSD = 199912) if you really want.
Re: [PATCH] 1.3 NET_SIZE_T is socklen_t on OpenBSD
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 10:05:19AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: Henning Brauer wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 07:12:56AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: +#define NET_SIZE_T socklen_t Does this hold for every level of OpenBSD, or is a version check necessary? all versions = 2.6 have socklen_t. Given that We don't support anything below 3.0 any more... ;-) Your point is well taken, but I don't think it is relevant to Apache I saw this coming, thus the smiley. While I don't see the point of still supporting 2.0 .. 2.5 from my (OS-Developer) perspective, I would most probably have acted the same way if I were in your position ;-) You could add a #if (OpenBSD = 199912) if you really want. Would you be so kind as to test such a patch and resubmit? Well, as you might imagine I work on -current ;-) I have a few -stable machines of various releases around, but none of that vintage. anyway, this works on -current and should do well on older releases as well. patch is hand-crufted, might not apply cleanly. --- ap_config.h.origTue Sep 10 17:05:11 2002 +++ ap_config.h Tue Sep 10 17:06:41 2002 @@ -692,6 +692,10 @@ #if defined __OpenBSD__ #define HAVE_SYSVSEM_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT #define USE_SYSVSEM_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT +#include sys/param.h +#if (OpenBSD = 199912) +#define NET_SIZE_T socklen_t +#endif #endif #define HAVE_FLOCK_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT #define SINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT -- Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
Re: [PATCH] 1.3 NET_SIZE_T is socklen_t on OpenBSD
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 11:17:58AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: Henning Brauer wrote: anyway, this works on -current and should do well on older releases as well. patch is hand-crufted, might not apply cleanly. --- ap_config.h.origTue Sep 10 17:05:11 2002 +++ ap_config.h Tue Sep 10 17:06:41 2002 -692,6 +692,10 #if defined __OpenBSD__ #define HAVE_SYSVSEM_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT #define USE_SYSVSEM_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT +#include sys/param.h +#if (OpenBSD = 199912) +#define NET_SIZE_T socklen_t +#endif #endif #define HAVE_FLOCK_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT #define SINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT can we assume that if __OpenBSD__ is defined, then OpenBSD will be as well in all cases? If so, then I'm +1 unless you count a few param.h releases which predate OpenBSD 2.0 (which was our first release): yes.
[PATCH] 1.3 NET_SIZE_T is socklen_t on OpenBSD
Index: src/include/ap_config.h === RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/httpd/src/include/ap_config.h,v retrieving revision 1.13 diff -u -r1.13 ap_config.h --- src/include/ap_config.h 19 Jul 2002 21:31:15 - 1.13 +++ src/include/ap_config.h 6 Sep 2002 19:16:23 - -692,6 +692,7 #if defined __OpenBSD__ #define HAVE_SYSVSEM_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT #define USE_SYSVSEM_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT +#define NET_SIZE_T socklen_t #endif #define HAVE_FLOCK_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT #define SINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT
Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 01:15:43PM +0200, Peter Van Biesen wrote: servlets, most apaches will use mod_jk anyway. I beg to differ.
Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:34:51PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1.
Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 12:57:05PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 04 September 2002 12:43 On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 03:34:51PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: [ ] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.0. [X] Check in aaa rewrite to 2.1. Could you please motivate this? We are interested in seeing why it should go in either 2.0 or 2.1. It's easy enough to create a 2.1 branch in CVS and developing the new auth stuff there until it's stable. then syncing changes done in the 2.0 stuff in and releasing 2.1 seems fair to me, opposed to destabilizing the whole 2.0 tree now.
Re: [VOTE] Location of aaa rewrite
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 01:24:38PM +0200, Mads Toftum wrote: On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 01:07:38PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: It's easy enough to create a 2.1 branch in CVS and developing the new auth stuff there until it's stable. then syncing changes done in the 2.0 stuff in and releasing 2.1 seems fair to me, opposed to destabilizing the whole 2.0 tree now. I don't think people are talking about branching here - the 2.1 solution would be a new repository. you are wrong. read the last days mails again. this decision is delayed. if a majority wants 2.0 it's obsolete anyway.
Re: 2.1 repository?
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 06:04:06PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote: The Apache project's dislike of branching seems slightly odd to me given that it seems to work quite effectively over long periods of time in the BSD projects. ACK. CVS branches work out just fine for us (OpenBSD). I don't see your problems with 'em. -- Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
Re: Re[2]: perchild on FreeBSD 5?
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 02:11:08PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote: I don't honestly know. The problem is that there are mulitple ways to pass file descriptors between processes based on the Unix that you are using. Assuming FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all have good thread libraries and that they all support the fd passing mechanism that Liux uses, yes everything will work. IF they don't support the same fd passing logic, then it is a simple matter of implementing the other fd passing logic, which should be easy to do. Assuming I get Perchild working this week, I will try to get it working on a BSD machine that I have as well. If I can't make it work on my BSD machine (because it is FreeBSD), then I will most likely need an account on a Net or Open BSD box. I most probably can help for OpenBSD. I'm maintaining our in-tree apache (1.3.27 w/ local changes), and 2.0 could/should be in ports/. I'm not going to import 2.0 in the near future, though. -- Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
Re: [PATCH] We have sysvsem on OpenBSD
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 08:42:33AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: I would have thought you would add #if defined __OpenBSD__ #define HAVE_SYSVSEM_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT #endif since you have flock too. If you want to force sysvsem be the default, add #define USE_SYSVSEM_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT in the __OpenBSD__ path. This way you allow the admin to choose flock if they really want. you're right. I'm on committing that change. as we have privilege seperation (chroot drop root privs in the parent) now per default we don't want flock, no files writeable by www inside ServerRoot.
Re: [PATCH] We have sysvsem on OpenBSD
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 09:18:34AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: Henning Brauer wrote: sorry if this appears twice, first one seems not to have made it. we have sysvsem on OpenBSD and applied the following patch to ap_config.h in our tree - would be nice to have it in the apache.org tree as well. this is for apache 1.3. Index: src/include/ap_config.h === RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/httpd/src/include/ap_config.h,v retrieving revision 1.10 diff -u -r1.10 ap_config.h --- src/include/ap_config.h 29 Mar 2002 02:08:05 - 1.10 +++ src/include/ap_config.h 9 Jul 2002 06:42:15 - -687,7 +687,11 #define HAVE_MMAP 1 #define USE_MMAP_SCOREBOARD #define USE_MMAP_FILES +#if defined __OpenBSD__ +#define HAVE_SYSVSEM_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT +#else #define HAVE_FLOCK_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT +#endif Why the #else part? Does OpenBSD lack flock() or is it because of the new 'chroot' that your version does, but the .org doesn't. If the latter, I'd prefer allowing both with the official ASF code. oversight on our part. I just commited a fix. flock works with out chroot, but we don't want www-writeable files inside the chroot, so we default to sysvsem.
Re: [PATCH] We have sysvsem on OpenBSD
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 03:22:54PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: flock works with out chroot, but we don't want www-writeable files inside the chroot, so we default to sysvsem. flock works with our chroot, that is.
Re: [PATCH] We have sysvsem on OpenBSD
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 10:31:44AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: does everybody agree that this is preferable? Index: src/include/ap_config.h === RCS file: /home/cvs/apache-1.3/src/include/ap_config.h,v retrieving revision 1.323 diff -u -r1.323 ap_config.h --- src/include/ap_config.h 3 Jun 2002 12:28:27 - 1.323 +++ src/include/ap_config.h 17 Jul 2002 14:23:39 - -688,6 +688,10 #define USE_MMAP_SCOREBOARD #define USE_MMAP_FILES #define HAVE_FLOCK_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT +#if defined(__OpenBSD__) +#define HAVE_SYSVSEM_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT +#define USE_SYSVSEM_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT +#endif #define SINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT #elif defined(UTS21) that's exactly what I've commited in our tree, so I do agree ;-)
