2.2.5
Hello. I just wonder if someone could tell me if and official 2.2.5/2.2.6 will be released before September the 10th? That's the version freeze date for Mandriva Linux 2008. Thanks in advance. -- Regards // Oden Eriksson
Re: 2.2.5
No guarantees, but the expectation is Yes, 2.2.6 will be released way before then. We're justing waiting for some APR cleanups before I tag/roll 2.2.6 On Aug 21, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Oden Eriksson wrote: Hello. I just wonder if someone could tell me if and official 2.2.5/2.2.6 will be released before September the 10th? That's the version freeze date for Mandriva Linux 2008. Thanks in advance. -- Regards // Oden Eriksson
Re: 2.2.5
tisdagen den 21 augusti 2007 skrev Jim Jagielski: No guarantees, but the expectation is Yes, 2.2.6 will be released way before then. We're justing waiting for some APR cleanups before I tag/roll 2.2.6 Thanks!. Sounds great! On Aug 21, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Oden Eriksson wrote: Hello. I just wonder if someone could tell me if and official 2.2.5/2.2.6 will be released before September the 10th? That's the version freeze date for Mandriva Linux 2008. Thanks in advance. -- Regards // Oden Eriksson -- Regards // Oden Eriksson
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
lördagen den 11 augusti 2007 skrev Jim Jagielski: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through August 14, 2007... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.28 [ ]httpd-2.0.60 [ ]httpd-2.2.5 2.2.5 works for me on latest Mandriva Cooker, and backported to Mandriva Linux Corporate Server 4, 2007.1 with x86_32 and x86_64. Even the perl-framework (latest) tests passes this time :) But for some reason and only under our build system HTTP::DAV is not found, maybe it's just some missing dependency, but I don't know which one it would be. -- Regards // Oden Eriksson
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Oden Eriksson Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. August 2007 13:56 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review But for some reason and only under our build system HTTP::DAV is not found, maybe it's just some missing dependency, but I don't know which one it would be. This could be some of the XML libaries. Try the folllowing perl script and investigate why it fails: require HTTP::DAV; my $dav = HTTP::DAV-new; Regards Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
torsdagen den 16 augusti 2007 skrev Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group: -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Oden Eriksson Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. August 2007 13:56 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review But for some reason and only under our build system HTTP::DAV is not found, maybe it's just some missing dependency, but I don't know which one it would be. This could be some of the XML libaries. Try the folllowing perl script and investigate why it fails: require HTTP::DAV; my $dav = HTTP::DAV-new; Ahh, thanks! The perl-XML-Parser package was needed. Now all tests passes, except for php that isn't activated. -- Regards // Oden Eriksson
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 07:49:54PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through August 14, 2007... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.28 [ ]httpd-2.0.60 [ ]httpd-2.2.5 Thanks!! -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http:// www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Attention Jim and fellow tester, are there complaints about pages error out and being slow? That is what I am finding with thi set of prereleases. One exaple http://www.nk.ca/cgi-bin/syswatch.pl And another http://ns2.nk.ca/cgi-bin/syswatch.pl We may need a second batch to test these out. -- Member - Liberal International This is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ici [EMAIL PROTECTED] God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! PAtriots! MAke your declaration of loyalty! -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
Hi, That is what I am finding with thi set of prereleases. One exaple http://www.nk.ca/cgi-bin/syswatch.pl And another http://ns2.nk.ca/cgi-bin/syswatch.pl it seems to me that you have not setup syswatch properly since the red and green pictures for the bars are missing; this does certainly slow down the build-up of the pages; fix this first, and then let's see again greetz, Guenter.
Re: {Spam?} Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 03:02:31AM +0200, Guenter Knauf wrote: Hi, That is what I am finding with thi set of prereleases. One exaple http://www.nk.ca/cgi-bin/syswatch.pl And another http://ns2.nk.ca/cgi-bin/syswatch.pl it seems to me that you have not setup syswatch properly since the red and green pictures for the bars are missing; this does certainly slow down the build-up of the pages; fix this first, and then let's see again greetz, Guenter. I may need some pointers on this. Still http://www.nk.ca/vispan/ and http://ns2.nk.ca/vispan/ is demonstrating the same issue. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Member - Liberal International This is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ici [EMAIL PROTECTED] God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! PAtriots! MAke your declaration of loyalty! -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: {Spam?} Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 03:02:31AM +0200, Guenter Knauf wrote: Hi, That is what I am finding with thi set of prereleases. One exaple http://www.nk.ca/cgi-bin/syswatch.pl And another http://ns2.nk.ca/cgi-bin/syswatch.pl it seems to me that you have not setup syswatch properly since the red and green pictures for the bars are missing; this does certainly slow down the build-up of the pages; fix this first, and then let's see again greetz, Guenter. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Further I do find in my logs: [Tue Aug 14 18:25:26 2007] [error] [client 1800:0:a8b4:d608:84a5:5748:6875:408] client denied by server configuration: /var/www/docs/vispan/queue.gif, referer: http://www.nk.ca/vispan/ [Tue Aug 14 18:25:26 2007] [error] [client 1800:0:a8b4:d608:84a5:5748:6875:408] client denied by server configuration: /var/www/docs/vispan/outqueue.gif, referer: http://www.nk.ca/vispan/ [Tue Aug 14 18:35:31 2007] [error] [client 1800:0:a8b4:d608:84a5:5748:6875:408] client denied by server configuration: /var/www/docs/vispan/ [Tue Aug 14 18:41:06 2007] [error] [client 1800:0:a8b4:d608:84a5:5748:6875:408] client denied by server configuration: /var/www/docs/vispan/virus.gif, referer: http://www.nk.ca/vispan/ [Tue Aug 14 18:41:06 2007] [error] [client 1800:0:a8b4:d608:84a5:5748:6875:408] client denied by server configuration: /var/www/docs/vispan/queue.gif, referer: http://www.nk.ca/vispan/ [Tue Aug 14 19:01:34 2007] [error] [client 1800:0:a8b4:d608:84a5:5748:6875:408] client denied by server configuration: /var/www/docs/vispan/outqueue.gif, referer: http://www.nk.ca/vispan/ Why? -- Member - Liberal International This is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ici [EMAIL PROTECTED] God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! PAtriots! MAke your declaration of loyalty! -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: {Spam?} Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
Hi Doc, I may need some pointers on this. well, that's simple: IIRC the syswatch script uses a very small picture to create the read and green bars; I dont see these bars, but instead my browser displays a place holder, and that suggests me that you have not setup the path or the rights for these two pictures. Some of the bars are of about 70% - that means even if the script uses only one pic per 5% then there are 14 links which dont resolve, timeout, log an error etc, and that may be the reason for the time delay; and again IIRC the script even uses one pic per 2% = 35 ill links... if you cure that the page will certainly come up faster! Still http://www.nk.ca/vispan/ and http://ns2.nk.ca/vispan/ is demonstrating the same issue. hmm, I dont see an issue here; there are a lot of graphics, and they usually need some time to get generated from the data; and beside that I get these within one second - I believe that's ok... but probably you have currently some dns issues; a friend of me also from CA had today strange effects with DNS; any chance you're from Manitoba area (shawcable.net) ? greets, Guenter.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
Hi, Further I do find in my logs: [Tue Aug 14 18:25:26 2007] [error] [client 1800:0:a8b4:d608:84a5:5748:6875:408] client denied by server configuration: /var/www/docs/vispan/queue.gif, referer: http://www.nk.ca/vispan/ [Tue Aug 14 18:25:26 2007] [error] [client 1800:0:a8b4:d608:84a5:5748:6875:408] client denied by server configuration: /var/www/docs/vispan/outqueue.gif, referer: http://www.nk.ca/vispan/ [Tue Aug 14 18:35:31 2007] [error] [client 1800:0:a8b4:d608:84a5:5748:6875:408] client denied by server configuration: /var/www/docs/vispan/ [Tue Aug 14 18:41:06 2007] [error] [client 1800:0:a8b4:d608:84a5:5748:6875:408] client denied by server configuration: /var/www/docs/vispan/virus.gif, referer: http://www.nk.ca/vispan/ [Tue Aug 14 18:41:06 2007] [error] [client 1800:0:a8b4:d608:84a5:5748:6875:408] client denied by server configuration: /var/www/docs/vispan/queue.gif, referer: http://www.nk.ca/vispan/ [Tue Aug 14 19:01:34 2007] [error] [client 1800:0:a8b4:d608:84a5:5748:6875:408] client denied by server configuration: /var/www/docs/vispan/outqueue.gif, referer: http://www.nk.ca/vispan/ Why? I cant tell you since I dont know your config, but it seems something's missing in your config; and the log confirms what I assumed: pics are not getting served, and timeout + logging cause the delays. probably you did test as root, and now the server cant access nor generate/overwrite these pics; try to delete the pics, and let the server generate new ones... greets, Guen.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
The tarballs and related files for 2.0.60 have been removed from testing... Depending on the speed in which APR 0.9.15, we may go ahead with a fully combined 1.3/2.0/2.2 release (as originally planned) or release 1.3/2.2 earlier than 2.0...
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:02:53 -0400 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Depending on the speed in which APR 0.9.15, we may go ahead with a fully combined 1.3/2.0/2.2 release (as originally planned) Rushed schedules lead to more bugs ... or release 1.3/2.2 earlier than 2.0... Maybe put out the announcements together, with 2.0 availability delayed briefly due to issues with the bundled APR. (Life would be so much simpler if dependencies were separated). -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
Hello, view from a small commercial vendor: [ ]httpd-2.2.5 dropped into custom buildsystem for proprietary solution; passed integrety check, compilation, regression tests, application testing plus manual inspection without so much as a burp. Best regards, Andreas -- flatline IT services - Andreas Kotes - Solutions for your IT needs
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Nick Kew Gesendet: Montag, 13. August 2007 14:54 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:02:53 -0400 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Depending on the speed in which APR 0.9.15, we may go ahead with a fully combined 1.3/2.0/2.2 release (as originally planned) Rushed schedules lead to more bugs ... or release 1.3/2.2 earlier than 2.0... Maybe put out the announcements together, with 2.0 availability delayed briefly due to issues with the bundled APR. So I would say lets drop a 2.0.x release this time completely and release 2.0.61 in conjunction with 2.2.6 in about 8 weeks (as planned by Jim for 2.2.6). This should be enough time to get apr 0.9.15 out of the door without too much rush. (Life would be so much simpler if dependencies were separated). Et ceterum censeo...:-). Regards Rüdger
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
On Aug 13, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote: -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Nick Kew Gesendet: Montag, 13. August 2007 14:54 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:02:53 -0400 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Depending on the speed in which APR 0.9.15, we may go ahead with a fully combined 1.3/2.0/2.2 release (as originally planned) Rushed schedules lead to more bugs ... or release 1.3/2.2 earlier than 2.0... Maybe put out the announcements together, with 2.0 availability delayed briefly due to issues with the bundled APR. So I would say lets drop a 2.0.x release this time completely and release 2.0.61 in conjunction with 2.2.6 in about 8 weeks (as planned by Jim for 2.2.6). This should be enough time to get apr 0.9.15 out of the door without too much rush. 2.0.60/61 does have a few CVS vuln's that would be nice to close and release earlier than 2 months from now :)
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
On Aug 10, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, Good PGP signatures on all. Good MD5 hashes on all, although you seem to have used md5 for 1.3 and md5sum for the others, resulting in a slightly different layout of the *.md5 files. Also, all the way through 1.3.37 the 1.3 drop has been available in .tar.gz and .tar.Z compressed format, never in .tar.bz2. Tested on Mac OS X Server, FreeBSD 6.1 and NetBSD 3.1, the latter two on VMWare Server instances. My Solaris 10 instance is not fit for duty right now. +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.28 +1 on powerpc-apple-darwin8.10.0 +1 on amd64-unknown-freebsd6.1 +1 on x86_64-unknown-netbsd3.1 [ ]httpd-2.0.60 -1 on powerpc-apple-darwin8.10.0 due to regressions as discussed on list -1 on amd64-unknown-freebsd6.1 due to same regressions Not tested on x86_64-unknown-netbsd3.1 [ ]httpd-2.2.5 +1 on powerpc-apple-darwin8.10.0 +1 on amd64-unknown-freebsd6.1 -1 on x86_64-unknown-netbsd3.1 (does not build, see below) Details: Darwin clarus.apache.org. 8.10.0 Darwin Kernel Version 8.10.0: Wed May 23 16:50:59 PDT 2007; root:xnu-792.21.3~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc 1.3.37: Failed TestStat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/apache/contentlength.t 206 30.00% 6 10 14 16 18 20 t/apache/headers.t 243 12.50% 3 6 9 t/apache/pr37166.t41 25.00% 4 t/modules/include.t 791 1.27% 43 t/modules/proxy.t132 15.38% 10-11 t/security/CVE-2006-5752.t21 50.00% 2 (1 subtest UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 28 tests and 19 subtests skipped. Failed 6/66 test scripts, 90.91% okay. 14/1834 subtests failed, 99.24% okay. 1.3.38: Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/apache/contentlength.t 206 30.00% 6 10 14 16 18 20 t/apache/headers.t 243 12.50% 3 6 9 t/apache/pr37166.t 41 25.00% 4 t/modules/include.t791 1.27% 43 t/modules/proxy.t 132 15.38% 10-11 (1 subtest UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 28 tests and 19 subtests skipped. Failed 5/66 test scripts, 92.42% okay. 13/1834 subtests failed, 99.29% okay. No regressions. 2.0.59 Prefork: Failed TestStat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/security/CVE-2006-5752.t21 50.00% 2 t/ssl/pr12355.t 10 10 100.00% 1-10 t/ssl/v2.t11 100.00% 1 (1 subtest UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 9 tests and 12 subtests skipped. Failed 3/77 test scripts, 96.10% okay. 12/2824 subtests failed, 99.58% okay. 2.0.59 Worker: Failed TestStat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/security/CVE-2006-5752.t21 50.00% 2 t/ssl/pr12355.t 10 10 100.00% 1-10 t/ssl/v2.t11 100.00% 1 (1 subtest UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 9 tests and 12 subtests skipped. Failed 3/77 test scripts, 96.10% okay. 12/2822 subtests failed, 99.57% okay. 2.0.60 Prefork: Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/modules/access.t408 31 7.60% 4 20-21 24 26 28 30 38 55 72 89 106-107 123-124 141 154 168 170 175 192 209 226 277 290 304 306 311 328 345 362 t/modules/setenvif.t 111 18 16.22% 7-9 13-15 19-21 25-27 31-33 37-39 t/ssl/v2.t 11 100.00% 1 t/ssl/varlookup.t 721 1.39% 11 (1 subtest UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 9 tests and 12 subtests skipped. Failed 4/77 test scripts, 94.81% okay. 51/2824 subtests failed, 98.19% okay. 2.0.60 Worker: Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/modules/access.t408 31 7.60% 4 20-21 24 26 28 30 38 55 72 89 106-107 123-124 141 154 168 170 175 192
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Sander Temme wrote: On Aug 10, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, Good PGP signatures on all. Good MD5 hashes on all, although you seem to have used md5 for 1.3 and md5sum for the others, resulting in a slightly different layout of the *.md5 files. Due to release.sh, the 2.x releases look for md5sum 1st, whereas the normal process for 1.3 uses md5... I'm hoping to make release.sh 1.3 aware eventually... Also, all the way through 1.3.37 the 1.3 drop has been available in .tar.gz and .tar.Z compressed format, never in .tar.bz2. By design and on purpose, I dropped .Z in favor of bz2... I wanted similar distros available.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
Jim Jagielski wrote: Also, all the way through 1.3.37 the 1.3 drop has been available in .tar.gz and .tar.Z compressed format, never in .tar.bz2. By design and on purpose, I dropped .Z in favor of bz2... I wanted similar distros available. When this came up last time, we decided to retain .Z because of the large number of old boxes which might not have gzip, but still have compress. Apache 1.3 still builds on a much broader range of ancient boxes than it's more modern cousin. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
On Aug 13, 2007, at 1:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: Also, all the way through 1.3.37 the 1.3 drop has been available in .tar.gz and .tar.Z compressed format, never in .tar.bz2. By design and on purpose, I dropped .Z in favor of bz2... I wanted similar distros available. When this came up last time, we decided to retain .Z because of the large number of old boxes which might not have gzip, but still have compress. Apache 1.3 still builds on a much broader range of ancient boxes than it's more modern cousin. I'll add compressed archives... :/
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
On Aug 10, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: [ ]httpd-2.2.5 2.2.5 Prefork is now running on issues.apache.org, running Ubuntu Dapper, and holding up nicely: http://issues.apache.org/server-status Not that we expected otherwise. (: S. -- Sander Temme [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
On 08/11/2007 01:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through August 14, 2007... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.28 [ ]httpd-2.0.60 [ ]httpd-2.2.5 -1 from me on 2.0.60 as the test framework revealed regressions compared to 2.0.59: 2.0.59: Failed TestStat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/modules/cgi.t 58 21 36.21% 14 16 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46-49 51-58 t/security/CVE-2006-5752.t21 50.00% 2 t/ssl/basicauth.t 32 66.67% 2-3 t/ssl/env.t 30 15 50.00% 16-30 t/ssl/pr12355.t 108 80.00% 1-8 t/ssl/proxy.t 172 118 68.60% 1-59 114-172 t/ssl/require.t 52 40.00% 2 5 t/ssl/varlookup.t72 72 100.00% 1-72 t/ssl/verify.t31 33.33% 2 (1 subtest UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 13 tests and 28 subtests skipped. Failed 9/77 test scripts, 88.31% okay. 240/2817 subtests failed, 91.48% okay. 2.0.60: Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/modules/access.t408 31 7.60% 4 20-21 24 26 28 30 38 55 72 89 106-107 123-124 141 154 168 170 175 192 209 226 277 290 304 306 311 328 345 362 t/modules/cgi.t58 21 36.21% 14 16 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46-49 51-58 t/modules/setenvif.t 111 18 16.22% 7-9 13-15 19-21 25-27 31-33 37-39 t/ssl/basicauth.t 32 66.67% 2-3 t/ssl/env.t30 15 50.00% 16-30 t/ssl/proxy.t 172 118 68.60% 1-59 114-172 t/ssl/require.t 52 40.00% 2 5 t/ssl/varlookup.t 72 72 100.00% 1-72 t/ssl/verify.t 31 33.33% 2 (1 subtest UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 13 tests and 28 subtests skipped. Failed 9/77 test scripts, 88.31% okay. 280/2817 subtests failed, 90.06% okay. These regression are caused by an apr problem. 2.0.59 is shipped with apr 0.9.12 whereas 2.0.60 is shipped with apr 0.9.14. The regressions are caused by r442526 and r443264 which are backports of r442135 and r443262 from apr trunk.. These revisions change apr_socket_accept in network_io/unix/sockets.c. Why does this not happen with apr trunk / 1.2.x? On apr trunk we have r447894. Backporting this patch to 0.9.14 fixes the regressions. On apr 1.2.x the backports of r442135 and r443262 have been reverted in r473681. So I guess we either have to ship 2.0.x with an older release of apr 0.9.x or we have to wait for a new release of apr 0.9.x that fixes this problem. Regards Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
On 08/11/2007 01:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through August 14, 2007... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.28 [ ]httpd-2.0.60 [ ]httpd-2.2.5 +1 from me on httpd-2.2.5: 1. Signature and md5sum ok for httpd-2.2.5.tar.gz / httpd-2.2.5.tar.bz2 2. Compiles fine and starts on Solaris 8: gcc (GCC) 3.3.2 Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. OpenSSL 0.9.8d 28 Sep 2006 3. Compiles fine on Solaris 9: gcc (GCC) 3.3.2 Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. OpenSSL 0.9.8d 28 Sep 2006 Failed TestStatus Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed t/apache/pr18757.t 9 2304 32 66.67% 2-3 t/modules/deflate.t 255 65280?? ?? % ?? t/modules/proxy.t255 65280?? ?? % ?? t/modules/rewrite.t 255 65280?? ?? % ?? t/security/CVE-2004-0959.t 2 512?? ?? % ?? t/security/CVE-2005-3357.t 255 65280?? ?? % ?? 21 tests skipped. Failed 6/63 test scripts, 90.48% okay. 2/1579 subtests failed, 99.87% okay. No regressions to 2.2.4. 4. Compiles fine on SuSE Linux 32 Bit: gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux) Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Linux euler 2.6.18.8-0.5-ruediger-20070715 #1 PREEMPT Sun Jul 15 10:44:38 CEST 2007 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux glibc-2.5-25 openSUSE 10.2 (i586) VERSION = 10.2 OpenSSL 0.9.8d 28 Sep 2006 openssl-0.9.8d-23.1 Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/ssl/basicauth.t32 66.67% 2-3 t/ssl/env.t 30 15 50.00% 16-30 t/ssl/extlookup.t22 100.00% 1-2 t/ssl/fakeauth.t 32 66.67% 2-3 t/ssl/proxy.t 172 118 68.60% 1-59 114-172 t/ssl/require.t 52 40.00% 2 5 t/ssl/varlookup.t 72 72 100.00% 1-72 t/ssl/verify.t 31 33.33% 2 7 tests and 18 subtests skipped. Failed 8/77 test scripts, 89.61% okay. 214/2831 subtests failed, 92.44% okay. No regressions to 2.2.4. 5. Compiles fine on SuSE Linux 64 Bit if expat detection patch (r545129) from apr-util 1.2.x branch is applied: gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 (SUSE Linux) Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Linux leibnitz 2.6.16.27-0.9-smp-debug-self #1 SMP Sat Mar 10 15:42:33 CET 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux glibc-2.4-31.1 SUSE LINUX 10.1 (X86-64) VERSION = 10.1 OpenSSL 0.9.8a 11 Oct 2005 Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/ssl/basicauth.t32 66.67% 2-3 t/ssl/env.t 30 15 50.00% 16-30 t/ssl/extlookup.t22 100.00% 1-2 t/ssl/fakeauth.t 32 66.67% 2-3 t/ssl/proxy.t 172 118 68.60% 1-59 114-172 t/ssl/require.t 52 40.00% 2 5 t/ssl/varlookup.t 72 72 100.00% 1-72 t/ssl/verify.t 31 33.33% 2 7 tests and 18 subtests skipped. Failed 8/77 test scripts, 89.61% okay. 214/2831 subtests failed, 92.44% okay. No regressions to 2.2.4. Regards Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
On Aug 12, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: -1 from me on 2.0.60 as the test framework revealed regressions compared to 2.0.59: What platform? Trying to recreate this... These regression are caused by an apr problem. 2.0.59 is shipped with apr 0.9.12 whereas 2.0.60 is shipped with apr 0.9.14. So I guess we either have to ship 2.0.x with an older release of apr 0.9.x or we have to wait for a new release of apr 0.9.x that fixes this problem. I would prefer not waiting for the next 0.9.x release of APR, so that means shipping 2.0.60 with 0.9.12. 0.9.13 includes the problematic patch :( Comments? Also, would this require a new tag for 2.0.60? It's not an Apache problem, rather with how the 2.0.60 tarball was done, but whenever problems have existed in the tarballs before, we have retagged and rerolled, which I think we would need to do now... That's what I'm going to do...
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
On 08/12/2007 05:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Aug 12, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: -1 from me on 2.0.60 as the test framework revealed regressions compared to 2.0.59: What platform? Trying to recreate this... Sorry for omitting: SuSE Linux 32 Bit: gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux) Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Linux euler 2.6.18.8-0.5-ruediger-20070715 #1 PREEMPT Sun Jul 15 10:44:38 CEST 2007 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux glibc-2.5-25 openSUSE 10.2 (i586) VERSION = 10.2 OpenSSL 0.9.8d 28 Sep 2006 openssl-0.9.8d-23.1 These regression are caused by an apr problem. 2.0.59 is shipped with apr 0.9.12 whereas 2.0.60 is shipped with apr 0.9.14. So I guess we either have to ship 2.0.x with an older release of apr 0.9.x or we have to wait for a new release of apr 0.9.x that fixes this problem. I would prefer not waiting for the next 0.9.x release of APR, so that means shipping 2.0.60 with 0.9.12. 0.9.13 includes the problematic patch :( Comments? Then this looks like the way to go. As you proposed to release 2.2.6 in about 8 weeks, we can also release 2.0.62 then if a new apr 0.9.x release is available then that fixes this issue. Also, would this require a new tag for 2.0.60? It's not an Apache problem, rather with how the 2.0.60 tarball was done, but whenever problems have existed in the tarballs before, we have retagged and rerolled, which I think we would need to do now... That's what I'm going to do... Although this is an apr problem and would mean that the tags for 2.0.60 and 2.0.61 would be the same I would prefer a new tag and a new tarball 2.0.61 to avoid any confusion. Regards Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs
Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 08/12/2007 05:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Also, would this require a new tag for 2.0.60? It's not an Apache problem, rather with how the 2.0.60 tarball was done, but whenever problems have existed in the tarballs before, we have retagged and rerolled, which I think we would need to do now... That's what I'm going to do... Although this is an apr problem and would mean that the tags for 2.0.60 and 2.0.61 would be the same I would prefer a new tag and a new tarball 2.0.61 to avoid any confusion. Yepper... from day one once the tarball is cut, no matter what's wrong with it, if we need to release another, we bump the tags... there's always the chance that an unofficial tarball will leak and the bump ensures that there's only 1 official release :) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
On 11 Aug 2007, at 00:49, Jim Jagielski wrote: [ ]httpd-2.0.60 Not tested (moot in view of Ruediger's -1) [ ]httpd-2.2.5 +1 Linux and MacOS. Fails two Perl tests on Mac (security/CVE-2004-0959 and apache/pr18757), but that appears to be down to my perl installation. -- Nick Kew
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
All fine for httpd-2.2.5 (VS2005 through the command line), except for this: T:\httpd-2.2.5\httpd-2.2.5\srclib\apr\include\apr_want.h(52): Could not find the file strings.h. T:\httpd-2.2.5\httpd-2.2.5\srclib\apr\include\apr_want.h(85): Could not find the file sys/uio.h. T:\httpd-2.2.5\httpd-2.2.5\srclib\apr\include\apr_want.h(103): Could not find th e file arpa/inet.h. Commenting out those lines was enough. -- Gustavo Lopes
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
+1 for the 2.2.5 tarball: good signature, test suite passes on Linux/x86_64, looks sane from manual inspection. joe
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
+1 for 2.2.5 on Win32 with VC2005 SP1 Build without any issue and running now 2.2.5 at www.apache.lounge.com . For testing you can download 2.2.5 at www.apache.lounge.com/download Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 11 August, 2007 01:49 Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through August 14, 2007... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.28 [ ]httpd-2.0.60 [ ]httpd-2.2.5 Thanks!! -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http:// www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
Sorry a typo in the links, so again: +1 for 2.2.5 on Win32 with VC2005 SP1 Build without any issue and running now 2.2.5 at www.apachelounge.com . For testing you can download 2.2.5 at www.apachelounge.com/download Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 11 August, 2007 01:49 Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through August 14, 2007... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.28 [ ]httpd-2.0.60 [ ]httpd-2.2.5 Thanks!! -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http:// www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
Gustavo Lopes wrote: All fine for httpd-2.2.5 (VS2005 through the command line), except for this: T:\httpd-2.2.5\httpd-2.2.5\srclib\apr\include\apr_want.h(52): Could not find the file strings.h. T:\httpd-2.2.5\httpd-2.2.5\srclib\apr\include\apr_want.h(85): Could not find the file sys/uio.h. T:\httpd-2.2.5\httpd-2.2.5\srclib\apr\include\apr_want.h(103): Could not find th e file arpa/inet.h. Commenting out those lines was enough. It's not necessary, however. There's a syntax/grammer parsing bug in VC that causes these, and they are nothing but warnings. You may (safely) ignore, and we cannot work around. Bill
[VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through August 14, 2007... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.28 [ ]httpd-2.0.60 [ ]httpd-2.2.5 Thanks!! -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http:// www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: [ ]apache_1.3.28 Obviously, that should have been [ ] apache_1.3.38 :)
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
Hi Jim, Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, I found a very small build problem which is caused by my own fault (I tested wrong before); what happens is that we changed recently the distribution directory to /apache22, but APR doesnt know about, and still assumes /apache2 as BASDIR, and so the aprlib gets copied to the wrong dir; the fix is trivial, and I've just commited it: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=564820 so if there is any other reason for a re-tag and new tarball please include this fix; otherwise we can live with it for this release I think since another workaround would be to just set an environment var BASEDIR=apache22 which makes APR aware of the right location to copy to. thanks, Guenter.
Re: 2.2.5?
On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Sander Temme wrote: On Jul 19, 2007, at 3:22 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: Now that the security related patches have been backported to 2.2.x is there anything that prevents us from releasing 2.2.5? Sander Temme volunteered to be the RM back in May. Is this still valid? Absolutely. I was going to propose a Tag Roll later this week, but then all hell broke loose and I found myself on the road. I can do a TR either this Friday (the 20th) or by the end of the weekend if that will get more people testing. I'll probably need one or more folks on irc to walk me through the process as this is my first. Can I have a hum on the timing? I'm +1 on a TR soon; lots of good fixes improvements as well as the security stuff. As noted on this and other lists, I'll be offline (on vacation) the next week w/ very limited cell and Net access (that's the way it is at some remote beaches) otherwise I'd offer to RM if you couldn't. But the earliest I could would be like the 30th...
2.2.5?
Now that the security related patches have been backported to 2.2.x is there anything that prevents us from releasing 2.2.5? Sander Temme volunteered to be the RM back in May. Is this still valid? Regards Rüdiger
Re: 2.2.5?
Ruediger Pluem wrote: Now that the security related patches have been backported to 2.2.x is there anything that prevents us from releasing 2.2.5? for me, not really I just want to finish the mod_proxy stuff related to PR37770 to get it in this release. Cheers Jean-Frederic Sander Temme volunteered to be the RM back in May. Is this still valid? Regards Rüdiger
Re: 2.2.5?
On Jul 19, 2007, at 3:22 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: Now that the security related patches have been backported to 2.2.x is there anything that prevents us from releasing 2.2.5? Sander Temme volunteered to be the RM back in May. Is this still valid? Absolutely. I was going to propose a Tag Roll later this week, but then all hell broke loose and I found myself on the road. I can do a TR either this Friday (the 20th) or by the end of the weekend if that will get more people testing. I'll probably need one or more folks on irc to walk me through the process as this is my first. Can I have a hum on the timing? S. -- Sander Temme [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: 2.2.5?
Issue 42665 fixes a long existing bug in httpd. A patch is included with the issue. I would like to nominate it for inclusion in v2.2.5 http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42665
Re: 2.2.5?
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Allen Pulsifer Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2007 17:11 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: RE: 2.2.5? Issue 42665 fixes a long existing bug in httpd. A patch is included with the issue. I would like to nominate it for inclusion in v2.2.5 http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42665 Thanks for the pointer but this patch is not even contained in trunk yet and as far as I remember the patch is only an optimization (compared to a bug that makes a functionality unusable). So I would guess that it misses the boat for 2.2.5. Regards Rüdiger
Re: 2.2.5?
Hey Allen, On Jul 19, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Allen Pulsifer wrote: Issue 42665 fixes a long existing bug in httpd. A patch is included with the issue. I would like to nominate it for inclusion in v2.2.5 http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42665 Thank you for contributing! As Rüdiger already points out, we want patches to go into the development trunk http://svn.apache.org/repos/ asf/httpd/httpd/trunk first, and they are backported after a vote. You can see this process at work by tracking commits to the STATUS file in the branches. Also, what's more expensive, running the extra code, or the extra stat () given that you are already calling stat() a lot with AllowOverride enabled? I agree it's bogus to treat index.html as a directory, but it's a valid directory name! Regards, S. -- Sander Temme [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: 2.2.5?
Thank you for contributing! As Rüdiger already points out, we want patches to go into the development trunk Whenever someone is ready to test this patch and/or commit it to the development trunk, please feel free. I think it should be obvious that if patches are going to sit around untested and uncommitted forever, then folks won't continue submitting them. AFAICS, there are approx 200 untested or uncommitted patches. http://tinyurl.com/3xgq58
RE: 2.2.5?
Thanks for the pointer but this patch is not even contained in trunk yet and as far as I remember the patch is only an optimization (compared to a bug that makes a functionality unusable). So I would guess that it misses the boat for 2.2.5. The patch is not an optimization--it fixes a bug in an optimization. It is true though that the bug and the bug fix only affect performance, not functionality.
Re: 2.2.5?
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Allen Pulsifer Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2007 17:54 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: RE: 2.2.5? Thank you for contributing! As Rüdiger already points out, we want patches to go into the development trunk Whenever someone is ready to test this patch and/or commit it to the development trunk, please feel free. I think it should be obvious that if patches are going to sit around untested and uncommitted forever, then folks won't continue submitting them. Agreed. So it is important to bring such patches back to the attention of the developers from time to time like you just did. Thanks for that. Regards Rüdiger
Please backport mod_cache PR 41475 to 2.2.5 ...
Hi!
I might be jumping the gun here, but I'd really like to see the fix
for PR 41475 backported to 2.2.5. We're hitting this issue when
mirroring the firefox installer which has a space in the filename...
We'll probably apply the fix locally, but it would be nice to have the
mod_cache fixes in 2.2.5 so we don't have to keep track of them when
upgrading...
/Nikke
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}.umu.se | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
I am NOT a computer nerd! I am a techno-weenie.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: Compiling apache2 against glibc 2.2.5
My binaries are portable, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. I'm trying to gather information as I continue to try to chase down the php4.2-dev + apache2 issue on this target platform. Note that portable (as in can be used on various Linux distributions) programs should be built with a glibc-2.1 (or even 2.0). Programs which are built with glibc-2.2.x don't necessarily work with older versions, e.g. there is no guarantee that a build against 2.2.5 will work with 2.2.4. - Sascha Experience IRCG http://schumann.cx/http://schumann.cx/ircg
Re: Compiling apache2 against glibc 2.2.5
GCC 3.x has been working quite well for me across my farm of servers. I've been using it since it came out and I upgrade glibc when it comes out as well. No problems noted w/ 24x7 uptime across a variety of cpu and hardware types. David Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 05:52:15PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote: Glibc 2.2.5 was compiled with gcc3. This is supposed to be allowable with glibc 2.2.5, since it was unsupported prior. Does anyone know of any issues doing this? I think you need the latest gcc version (3.0.4?) to compile glibc 2.2.5 properly. But, I'm not sure. I'm not seeing any problems here with 2.2.4, but I don't trust gcc3 to compile glibc for a few more point releases. My binaries are portable, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. I'm trying to gather information as I continue to try to chase down the php4.2-dev + apache2 issue on this target platform. What's your problem again? -- justin smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Compiling apache2 against glibc 2.2.5
On Fri, 2002-03-08 at 01:14, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 05:52:15PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote: My binaries are portable, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. I'm trying to gather information as I continue to try to chase down the php4.2-dev + apache2 issue on this target platform. What's your problem again? -- justin The problem is using PHP on glibc2.2.5 compiled by gcc3 with apache2.0.32. I can use PHP as a cgi, no problem, but trying to use it as .so, is where I have problems. I've also sent another request to the PHP list in the realm of glibc compiled by gcc3, and if I need to explicitly specify the libgcc_s info. I think that may be part of the issue. I've found that PHP 4.2-dev works just fine, with apache 2.0.32, just not my target. -- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA Coremetrics, Inc. Phone: 512-698-7250 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it. Latin Proverb
Re: Compiling apache2 against glibc 2.2.5
Right. I read that as well. There's info in the glibc docs about that. Anyway, I've found that as LONG as you are using glibc 3.0.3 or 3.0.4, with glibc 2.2.5, then the compatibility problem goes away. (per the glibc changelog from 2.2.5) This is specifically in the realm of 2.2.x, not previous. On Fri, 2002-03-08 at 04:03, Sascha Schumann wrote: My binaries are portable, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. I'm trying to gather information as I continue to try to chase down the php4.2-dev + apache2 issue on this target platform. Note that portable (as in can be used on various Linux distributions) programs should be built with a glibc-2.1 (or even 2.0). Programs which are built with glibc-2.2.x don't necessarily work with older versions, e.g. there is no guarantee that a build against 2.2.5 will work with 2.2.4. - Sascha Experience IRCG http://schumann.cx/http://schumann.cx/ircg -- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA Coremetrics, Inc. Phone: 512-698-7250 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it. Latin Proverb
Compiling apache2 against glibc 2.2.5
Glibc 2.2.5 was compiled with gcc3. This is supposed to be allowable with glibc 2.2.5, since it was unsupported prior. Does anyone know of any issues doing this? My binaries are portable, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. I'm trying to gather information as I continue to try to chase down the php4.2-dev + apache2 issue on this target platform. TIA. -- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA Coremetrics, Inc. Phone: 512-698-7250 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it. Latin Proverb
Re: Compiling apache2 against glibc 2.2.5
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 05:52:15PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote: Glibc 2.2.5 was compiled with gcc3. This is supposed to be allowable with glibc 2.2.5, since it was unsupported prior. Does anyone know of any issues doing this? I think you need the latest gcc version (3.0.4?) to compile glibc 2.2.5 properly. But, I'm not sure. I'm not seeing any problems here with 2.2.4, but I don't trust gcc3 to compile glibc for a few more point releases. My binaries are portable, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. I'm trying to gather information as I continue to try to chase down the php4.2-dev + apache2 issue on this target platform. What's your problem again? -- justin
