Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Hi Graham, On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:30:37 UTC, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote: This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. Paul Smedley wrote: Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2 maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role. I've been building Apache2 on OS/2 for the last 4 years or so, I just enver got around to submitting patches. If the support is pulled, it will make my life harder continuing to maintain the port. If someone is will to maintain it, +1 for letting it stay. I will maintain it :) I'm moving house in 10 days, so once we get settled in, I'll tidy up what I have here, and submit :) -- Cheers, Paul.
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Hi, On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:43:08 UTC, Nick Kew n...@webthing.com wrote: Guenter Knauf wrote: Jeff Trawick schrieb: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Paul Smedley pauldes...@despamsmedley.id.au mailto:pauldes...@despamsmedley.id.au wrote: Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2 maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role. I hope you've noticed that the OS/2 MPM is gone from trunk ;) hehe, the cat bites into its own tail :) - APR is broken for OS/2 - he needs Subversion to fix it properly with us - Subversion needs APR -- back to start :) But he maintains APR on OS/2, so all's well :) Correct - I have working builds of APR and subversion here for OS/2 :) -- Cheers, Paul.
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Hi Brian, On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:12:11 UTC, Brian Havard brian.hav...@gmail.com wrote: Nick Kew wrote: Paul Smedley wrote: [ ] yank BeOS MPM from trunk [ ] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk (I'm +1 on both votes) Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2 maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role. I've been building Apache2 on OS/2 for the last 4 years or so, I just enver got around to submitting patches. If the support is pulled, it will make my life harder continuing to maintain the port. If you've been maintaining it independently to date, you could presumably continue to do so on exactly the same basis if it were pulled from the official release. So that's one option. I see you've posted a patch to d...@apr. I am, alas, not competent to review it. If anyone on the APR and HTTPD projects has OS2 and the time to review it, maybe this could be a start to reviving OS2 support, and to your working with the apache community. I know I've been absent for a long time but I once again have a bit of spare time so I can review, test commit patches from Paul. Does anyone object if I start by bringing the OS/2 MPM back from the dead? Specifically, reversing r758899? Just a comment regarding testing - I assume you only have an EMX environment? I'm using klibc for all my stuff - http://svn.netlabs.org/klibc It would be good to ensure that I don't break anything for EMX :) -- Cheers, Paul.
Re: Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Hi Guys, On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:36:29 UTC, traw...@gmail.com wrote: * The last OS/2-specific MPM change I can find was in 2003 (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=101826). Votes: [ ] yank BeOS MPM from trunk [ ] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk (I'm +1 on both votes) Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2 maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role. I've been building Apache2 on OS/2 for the last 4 years or so, I just enver got around to submitting patches. If the support is pulled, it will make my life harder continuing to maintain the port. -- Cheers, Paul.
Re: Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Paul Smedley pauldes...@despamsmedley.id.au wrote: Hi Guys, On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:36:29 UTC, traw...@gmail.com wrote: * The last OS/2-specific MPM change I can find was in 2003 (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=101826). Votes: [ ] yank BeOS MPM from trunk [ ] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk (I'm +1 on both votes) Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2 maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role. I hope you've noticed that the OS/2 MPM is gone from trunk ;) I've been building Apache2 on OS/2 for the last 4 years or so, I just enver got around to submitting patches. If the support is pulled, it will make my life harder continuing to maintain the port. All you need to get OS/2 working in trunk is version control *somewhere*, and to check out the MPM itself on top of httpd trunk. When patches are submitted to add OS/2 support back to the core, please take the opportunity to help figure out the real meaning of the conditional logic so that we don't continually maintain stuff like #if WINDOWS || NETWARE || OS2 || xx. (I anticipate that the Windows and NetWare maintainers will assist. No worries here if these are tracked by a handful of new characteristics, almost all of which are common between these three platforms ;) )
Re: Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Hi Jeff, On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:09:13 UTC, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Paul Smedley pauldes...@despamsmedley.id.au wrote: Hi Guys, On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:36:29 UTC, traw...@gmail.com wrote: * The last OS/2-specific MPM change I can find was in 2003 (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=101826). Votes: [ ] yank BeOS MPM from trunk [ ] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk (I'm +1 on both votes) Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2 maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role. I hope you've noticed that the OS/2 MPM is gone from trunk ;) Actually no, as I just build from the tar.bz2 on each release :) All you need to get OS/2 working in trunk is version control *somewhere*, and to check out the MPM itself on top of httpd trunk. When patches are submitted to add OS/2 support back to the core, please take the opportunity to help figure out the real meaning of the conditional logic so that we don't continually maintain stuff like #if WINDOWS || NETWARE || OS2 || xx. (I anticipate that the Windows and NetWare maintainers will assist. No worries here if these are tracked by a handful of new characteristics, almost all of which are common between these three platforms ;) ) OK - I'll try get to this real soon now. I'm moving house in two weeks though, so there may be some delays :) -- Cheers, Paul.
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Paul Smedley wrote: [ ] yank BeOS MPM from trunk [ ] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk (I'm +1 on both votes) Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2 maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role. I've been building Apache2 on OS/2 for the last 4 years or so, I just enver got around to submitting patches. If the support is pulled, it will make my life harder continuing to maintain the port. If you've been maintaining it independently to date, you could presumably continue to do so on exactly the same basis if it were pulled from the official release. So that's one option. I see you've posted a patch to d...@apr. I am, alas, not competent to review it. If anyone on the APR and HTTPD projects has OS2 and the time to review it, maybe this could be a start to reviving OS2 support, and to your working with the apache community. Why not start with a review of the options: - maintain it at apache.org - maintain it independently and tell us what you think are the pros and cons of moving from one to the other. Oh, and do point us at your patches, in case anyone is in a position to review them. -- Nick Kew
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Paul Smedley wrote: Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2 maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role. I've been building Apache2 on OS/2 for the last 4 years or so, I just enver got around to submitting patches. If the support is pulled, it will make my life harder continuing to maintain the port. If someone is will to maintain it, +1 for letting it stay. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Hi Paul, Paul Smedley schrieb: I hope you've noticed that the OS/2 MPM is gone from trunk ;) Actually no, as I just build from the tar.bz2 on each release :) hehe, our snapshots are stalled for the last 15 months - so either checkout from SVN, or get snapshots from my home: http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/snapshots/ Günter.
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Jeff Trawick schrieb: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Paul Smedley pauldes...@despamsmedley.id.au mailto:pauldes...@despamsmedley.id.au wrote: Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2 maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role. I hope you've noticed that the OS/2 MPM is gone from trunk ;) hehe, the cat bites into its own tail :) - APR is broken for OS/2 - he needs Subversion to fix it properly with us - Subversion needs APR -- back to start :) Gün.
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Guenter Knauf wrote: Jeff Trawick schrieb: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Paul Smedley pauldes...@despamsmedley.id.au mailto:pauldes...@despamsmedley.id.au wrote: Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2 maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role. I hope you've noticed that the OS/2 MPM is gone from trunk ;) hehe, the cat bites into its own tail :) - APR is broken for OS/2 - he needs Subversion to fix it properly with us - Subversion needs APR -- back to start :) But he maintains APR on OS/2, so all's well :) -- Nick Kew
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Nick Kew wrote: Paul Smedley wrote: [ ] yank BeOS MPM from trunk [ ] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk (I'm +1 on both votes) Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2 maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role. I've been building Apache2 on OS/2 for the last 4 years or so, I just enver got around to submitting patches. If the support is pulled, it will make my life harder continuing to maintain the port. If you've been maintaining it independently to date, you could presumably continue to do so on exactly the same basis if it were pulled from the official release. So that's one option. I see you've posted a patch to d...@apr. I am, alas, not competent to review it. If anyone on the APR and HTTPD projects has OS2 and the time to review it, maybe this could be a start to reviving OS2 support, and to your working with the apache community. I know I've been absent for a long time but I once again have a bit of spare time so I can review, test commit patches from Paul. Does anyone object if I start by bringing the OS/2 MPM back from the dead? Specifically, reversing r758899?
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Brian Havard wrote: I know I've been absent for a long time but I once again have a bit of spare time so I can review, test commit patches from Paul. Does anyone object if I start by bringing the OS/2 MPM back from the dead? Specifically, reversing r758899? +1, go ahead. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
2009/3/27 William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net: abandoned, but in theory might work for 90% of the cases. Do we work to preserve them, or work to recover them if we break them, or do we truly bother either way? I wouldn't bother - older versions would work just fine. But, maybe it'd truly matter to someone. =) -- justin
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
On 26.03.2009 09:04, Jeff Trawick wrote: [ ] MPM from trunk wouldn't build/serve a page on Linux prior to changes for MPM DSO support[ ] MPM from last 2.2.x release wouldn't build/serve a page on Linux [ ] Brad/Brian/David speak up regarding the several non-Unix MPMs [ ] ??? If somebody is actively using something besides (WinNT, prefork, worker, event, simple), I'm very happy to make the changes required by the MPM DSO support, but I don't want to waste my time (supposedly there are some things to see in Amsterdam!). Generally, nobody should be wasting their time on the little MPM museum we have. We should axe leader perchild threadpool immediately in trunk as IMHO they are not maintained for years. I am not quite sure how much care the platform specific MPMs for OS2 and BEOS get. Novell seems to be still maintained by Brad. Plus we should promote event from experimental to a regular one. Regards Rüdiger
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote: We should axe leader perchild threadpool immediately in trunk as IMHO they are not maintained for years. I am not quite sure how much care the platform specific MPMs for OS2 and BEOS get. Novell seems to be still maintained by Brad. Plus we should promote event from experimental to a regular one. +1 to all of this. Although, I think we should/could axe the BeOS MPM, i've not heard of anyone using or maintaining it for years.
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
On 26 Mar 2009, at 08:18, Ruediger Pluem wrote: We should axe leader perchild threadpool Criterion: those MPMs that pre-date 2.2 but are not included in it need to be shoved away in a dusty attic. Looks like the above list. -- Nick Kew
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
2009/3/26 Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org: We should axe leader perchild threadpool immediately in trunk as IMHO they are not maintained for years. +1. -- justin
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.comwrote: 2009/3/26 Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org: We should axe leader perchild threadpool immediately in trunk as IMHO they are not maintained for years. +1. -- justin I'm working on removing these three; the task consists mostly of pruning bits and pieces out of various files.
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
On Mar 26, 2009, at 4:18 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 26.03.2009 09:04, Jeff Trawick wrote: [ ] MPM from trunk wouldn't build/serve a page on Linux prior to changes for MPM DSO support[ ] MPM from last 2.2.x release wouldn't build/ serve a page on Linux [ ] Brad/Brian/David speak up regarding the several non-Unix MPMs [ ] ??? If somebody is actively using something besides (WinNT, prefork, worker, event, simple), I'm very happy to make the changes required by the MPM DSO support, but I don't want to waste my time (supposedly there are some things to see in Amsterdam!). Generally, nobody should be wasting their time on the little MPM museum we have. We should axe leader perchild threadpool +1
Re: Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
On Mar 26, 2009 11:49am, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Mar 26, 2009, at 4:18 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 26.03.2009 09:04, Jeff Trawick wrote: [ ] MPM from trunk wouldn't build/serve a page on Linux prior to changes for MPM DSO support[ ] MPM from last 2.2.x release wouldn't build/serve a page on Linux [ ] Brad/Brian/David speak up regarding the several non-Unix MPMs [ ] ??? If somebody is actively using something besides (WinNT, prefork, worker, event, simple), I'm very happy to make the changes required by the MPM DSO support, but I don't want to waste my time (supposedly there are some things to see in Amsterdam!). Generally, nobody should be wasting their time on the little MPM museum we have. We should axe leader perchild threadpool +1 Those three are now gone. In the 2.2.x CHANGES file there is no mention of BeOS or OS/2 (or OS2 for that matter). I think those two MPMs should be removed. * In early 2.2.x at least, somebody was maintaining Netware; I imagine that 2.2.x still works fine. * The last BeOS-specific MPM change I can find was in 2004 (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=102941). * The last OS/2-specific MPM change I can find was in 2003 (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=101826). Votes: [ ] yank BeOS MPM from trunk [ ] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk (I'm +1 on both votes)
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
On 26.03.2009 15:36, traw...@gmail.com wrote: Votes: [ ] yank BeOS MPM from trunk [ ] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk (I'm +1 on both votes) +1 on both. The stay in svn and can resurrect if somebody really cares. Regards Rüdiger
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
traw...@gmail.com wrote: Votes: [+1] yank BeOS MPM from trunk [+1] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk and for completeness [+1] yank Netware from trunk Netware is 'done' - surely some will use it for another 5 years but not for 'new software'. Their 2.2 build is sufficient IMHO. A totally separate vote/discussion is required on d...@apr.
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
On 3/26/2009 at 11:14 AM, in message 49cbb7d9.80...@rowe-clan.net, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: traw...@gmail.com wrote: Votes: [+1] yank BeOS MPM from trunk [+1] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk and for completeness [+1] yank Netware from trunk Netware is 'done' - surely some will use it for another 5 years but not for 'new software'. Their 2.2 build is sufficient IMHO. A totally separate vote/discussion is required on d...@apr. FWIW, netware still builds and runs in trunk. If you yank the MPM, then I guess netware really will be done. :( Brad
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Brad Nicholes bnicho...@novell.com wrote: On 3/26/2009 at 11:14 AM, in message 49cbb7d9.80...@rowe-clan.net, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: traw...@gmail.com wrote: Votes: [+1] yank BeOS MPM from trunk [+1] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk and for completeness [+1] yank Netware from trunk Netware is 'done' - surely some will use it for another 5 years but not for 'new software'. Their 2.2 build is sufficient IMHO. A totally separate vote/discussion is required on d...@apr. FWIW, netware still builds and runs in trunk. That's good enough for me (though I guess you haven't tried in a couple of days ;) ). I'll add in the changes to work with the new MPM interface that allows DSO MPMs.
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
On 3/26/2009 at 11:55 AM, in message 49cb6d2b02ac0003c...@lucius.provo.novell.com, Brad Nicholes bnicho...@novell.com wrote: On 3/26/2009 at 11:14 AM, in message 49cbb7d9.80...@rowe-clan.net, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: traw...@gmail.com wrote: Votes: [+1] yank BeOS MPM from trunk [+1] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk and for completeness [+1] yank Netware from trunk Netware is 'done' - surely some will use it for another 5 years but not for 'new software'. Their 2.2 build is sufficient IMHO. A totally separate vote/discussion is required on d...@apr. FWIW, netware still builds and runs in trunk. If you yank the MPM, then I guess netware really will be done. :( Just to follow up. Apache 2.0.x for NetWare is the only version that is still shipping on the NetWare platform. I am not sure if anybody is really using Apache 2.2.x for NetWare or not. I expect that there are a few loyal NetWare fans out there that upgraded to 2.2 on there own. Apache 2.3.x and beyond, no plans to use it, ship it and I can only really maintain it to make sure that things still build and appear to run correctly. So basically, if you all decide to pull the NetWare MPM, then I guess I don't have to worry about maintaining apache for NetWare beyond 2.2.x. Brad
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Brad Nicholes bnicho...@novell.com wrote: On 3/26/2009 at 11:55 AM, in message 49cb6d2b02ac0003c...@lucius.provo.novell.com, Brad Nicholes bnicho...@novell.com wrote: On 3/26/2009 at 11:14 AM, in message 49cbb7d9.80...@rowe-clan.net, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: traw...@gmail.com wrote: Votes: [+1] yank BeOS MPM from trunk [+1] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk and for completeness [+1] yank Netware from trunk Netware is 'done' - surely some will use it for another 5 years but not for 'new software'. Their 2.2 build is sufficient IMHO. A totally separate vote/discussion is required on d...@apr. FWIW, netware still builds and runs in trunk. If you yank the MPM, then I guess netware really will be done. :( Just to follow up. Apache 2.0.x for NetWare is the only version that is still shipping on the NetWare platform. I am not sure if anybody is really using Apache 2.2.x for NetWare or not. I expect that there are a few loyal NetWare fans out there that upgraded to 2.2 on there own. Apache 2.3.x and beyond, no plans to use it, ship it and I can only really maintain it to make sure that things still build and appear to run correctly. So basically, if you all decide to pull the NetWare MPM, then I guess I don't have to worry about maintaining apache for NetWare beyond 2.2.x. You pull the trigger then ;) -- Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
On 3/26/2009 at 12:07 PM, in message cc67648e0903261107l1302f629k95494e01834c6...@mail.gmail.com, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Brad Nicholes bnicho...@novell.com wrote: On 3/26/2009 at 11:55 AM, in message 49cb6d2b02ac0003c...@lucius.provo.novell.com, Brad Nicholes bnicho...@novell.com wrote: On 3/26/2009 at 11:14 AM, in message 49cbb7d9.80...@rowe-clan.net, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: traw...@gmail.com wrote: Votes: [+1] yank BeOS MPM from trunk [+1] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk and for completeness [+1] yank Netware from trunk Netware is 'done' - surely some will use it for another 5 years but not for 'new software'. Their 2.2 build is sufficient IMHO. A totally separate vote/discussion is required on d...@apr. FWIW, netware still builds and runs in trunk. If you yank the MPM, then I guess netware really will be done. :( Just to follow up. Apache 2.0.x for NetWare is the only version that is still shipping on the NetWare platform. I am not sure if anybody is really using Apache 2.2.x for NetWare or not. I expect that there are a few loyal NetWare fans out there that upgraded to 2.2 on there own. Apache 2.3.x and beyond, no plans to use it, ship it and I can only really maintain it to make sure that things still build and appear to run correctly. So basically, if you all decide to pull the NetWare MPM, then I guess I don't have to worry about maintaining apache for NetWare beyond 2.2.x. You pull the trigger then ;) Pull it. It's been a good run and I really had a lot of fun porting and maintaining Apache for NetWare. But I guess it's time to say goodbye (to Apache for NetWare, not me ;) I will try to hang around and maintain the older versions, if anything needs to be maintained. If there is anything that comes up with Apache for the Linux platform that I can help with, I will certainly do my best. But I guess going forward, if Apache for NetWare ever becomes relevant again, I'll just pick it up and port it like I did before. But I really don't see that happening. Brad
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
On 26.03.2009 19:25, Brad Nicholes wrote: Pull it. It's been a good run and I really had a lot of fun porting and maintaining Apache for NetWare. But I guess it's time to say goodbye (to Apache for NetWare, not me ;) I will try to hang around and maintain the older versions, if anything needs to be maintained. If there is anything that comes up with Apache for the Linux platform that I can help with, I will certainly do my best. But I guess going forward, if Apache for NetWare ever becomes relevant again, I'll just pick it up and port it like I did before. But I really don't see that happening. Whichever way this goes, a big thanks for all your work on Netware. Regards Rüdiger
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Ruediger Pluem wrote: Whichever way this goes, a big thanks for all your work on Netware. +1 and a huge 'wish you were here' Brad!!! I'm not pushing to 'break' netware, but rather, deciding to do once it is broken. The situation is very similar to Wk2 and NT4SP6 which are abandoned, but in theory might work for 90% of the cases. Do we work to preserve them, or work to recover them if we break them, or do we truly bother either way? Bill
