On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 23:16 -0400, Paul Lockaby wrote:
However, I do not know how to fix it. Has anyone else determined how
to solve this problem? Are there plans to update libapreq2 to address
this change in Fedora?
You may to try look at these:
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 18:40 -0700, Mark Hedges wrote:
Argh why do they try to backport bugfixes to three-year
old Apache 2.2.3 instead of using current stable minor
revision 2.2.11? *tears out hair*
Better question: why is RHEL6 not out yet ;-)
--
Bojan
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 09:19 +0100, mmm zzz wrote:
gcc: +b: No such file or directory
From memory, +b may be an option used by HP-UX specific linker, so maybe
GCC gets confused and sees it as a file. Don't have a box to try any
more... Maybe you need to give it -Wl,+b instead?
--
Bojan
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 10:44 +0100, mmm zzz wrote:
I'm just a newbie in the compilation and don't know a lot in the
compilers options and can't deside what to add or to remove to be able
to finish the compilation in HP with GCC or CC.
I'm guessing you'll need to have a good GCC installed (when
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 11:35 -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Please test and vote on
http://people.apache.org/~joes/libapreq2-2.12-RC2.tar.gz
http://people.apache.org/~joes/libapreq2-2.12-RC2.tar.gz.asc
Compiles and runs all tests successfully on F-10.
--
Bojan
On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 10:34 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 15:25 -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Is that a +1 to release, or not yet?
I'll try to build some RPMs from it first and report back.
+1.
Builds OK as RPM on F-10 and F-11.
--
Bojan
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 08:47 +0200, Issac Goldstand wrote:
I'm all
for calling 2.11 a dud and restarting with 2.12
Version numbers are cheap - go for it.
--
Bojan
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 14:53 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
I built from SVN or do you mean you'll add a patch to the rpm
after release ?
I thought you were referring to current RPM build/install there.
If there is a problem with build/install on CentOS from source and we
know how to fix
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 13:53 -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote:
That is bunk. We shoul NEVER try to support svn builds for releases,
because that makes us dependent on whatever autocruft is on CentOS.
It also doesn't help diddly squat when testing a potential candidate
for release, since those are
On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 23:06 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
If not, I'm tempted to roll it tomorrow day-time unless someone else beats me
to it.
Go ahead and roll. If you don't make it, I'll jump in later in the week.
--
Bojan
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 06:32 -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Are you planning to pursue 2.10 as RM or
should we be moving on to 2.11? The only outstanding issue I am aware
of is pgollucci's claim that the perl modules aren't linking correctly
to libapreq2 on Solaris. While that would be nice to
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 01:40 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Committed revision 721096.
Backported to branches/2_10 721099.
Let me know when you backport all the stuff you wanted to get from the
trunk and I'll roll RC2.
--
Bojan
On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 04:34 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
its 4:30am and I've not look at this code in a while, the debugging will
have to wait.
Also, I I'm pretty sure I want to merge 1-2 things from trunk to 2.10
that are low risk but important.
Cool. That's why we have RCs after
On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 09:10 -0500, Adam Prime wrote:
I was reminded of a documentation omission by an email on the mod_perl
list this morning. Can something be added into the porting warnings here:
http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__xs__request.html
mentioning
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 17:00 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
OOPS, sorry.
The trunk has been reverted to version 2.10 for now.
--
Bojan
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:56 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Probably a good thing, I'm not sure what the differences are.
[are all my solaris fixes on the 2_10 branch ?]
Here you go...
--
Bojan
diff -rauN --exclude=.svn apreq-2.10/CHANGES apreq/CHANGES
--- apreq-2.10/CHANGES 2008-11-11
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 10:36 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
We should find out what's going on with this before the release.
What I've discovered so far is that mod_apreq_output_filter_test.c gets
the correctly parsed content from apreq machinery and puts all that in
the brigade. But, upon
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 20:31 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
This will require further debugging...
After employing mod_dumpio, it seems that Apache actually outputs
everything out, even over SSL. I have no idea how and why it doesn't
show up in the client (i.e. as reported by request.t). Maybe
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 23:08 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Apache-Test definitely jumps through hoops for SSL.
Are your perl SSL CPANs up-to-date ?
Whatever Fedora 9 has, I have. Whether that's most up to date, I don't
know.
I think I should just put out an RC tarball and let people test.
It has been over two years since the latest apreq2 release, so it is
time to get some new code out the door. Numerous bugs were fixed (see
the full list in the CHANGES file) since the last official release
(2.08), so please give us feedback on this release candidate.
You can get the tarball, its
On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 17:29 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
It has been over two years since the latest apreq2 release, so it is
time to get some new code out the door. Numerous bugs were fixed (see
the full list in the CHANGES file) since the last official release
(2.08), so please give us
On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 02:01 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
(ahh, you were in unix group httpd, I've just added you)
I am not an httpd committer. I only have commit rights to apreq
directory.
--
Bojan
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 18:41 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
BTW, 2.08 and 2.09-rc2 fail exactly the same on my box. Something must
be screwed in my setup...
When I run the tests against vanilla httpd (instead of Fedora supplied
one), the number of tests drops to 82 (as opposed to 121 with Fedora
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 09:38 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
These two tests fail when SSL is enabled.
Indeed, things get chopped off. I'm attaching an example from test 34.
The files 1.e and 1.r are expected/received content, respectively, that
the test sees over regular HTTP. The files 2.e and 2.r
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:45 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
did you see the [EMAIL PROTECTED] post ?
No, not really. I don't normally follow that list, as my Perl really,
really sucks (did I mention my Perl really sucks? ;-)).
If you want to volunteer RM for one of them, I'll take the
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Is that with
$ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1
Fails in exactly the same way as make release_test.
--
Bojan
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 07:51 +0200, Issac Goldstand wrote:
Whoa
-0.9
Update release info *after* the RCs pass muster. The release only
happens after the votes - I'm pretty sure that that's in the RELEASE
file (otherwise 1.34 would have a release date of 2006 ;-p)
OOPS, sorry.
--
Bojan
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:02 +0200, Issac Goldstand wrote:
I'm gonna play with my version too. I'll shout if I get something
working (and you do the same?)
OK.
--
Bojan
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 15:54 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Is that with
$ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1
Fails in exactly the same way as make release_test.
BTW, 2.08 and 2.09-rc2 fail exactly the same on my box. Something must
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 18:46 +0300, Eli Marmor wrote:
DON'T FORGET TO MERGE THE ENHANCED-CGI !!!
Do you have a link?
--
Bojan
Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we roll this?
It's been a long time since the last stable release, I think we should
go ahead and get something out the door...
--
Bojan
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 21:35 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Needs a comment in the source about why we're using
volatile here, but otherwise +1.
Done on both the trunk and v2_10 branch.
Any comment regarding my other patch about strict aliasing warnings?
--
Bojan
I propose we fix this as attached. I tested this on Fedora 9 and it
works OK. Opinions?
--
Bojan
Index: library/parser_multipart.c
===
--- library/parser_multipart.c (revision 663420)
+++ library/parser_multipart.c (working copy)
@@
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 11:20 -0400, Zero Altitude wrote:
The segfault appears to be due to handle having an illegal-to-read
memory address by the time its module member is referenced. I do not
appear to be doing anything untoward with respect to initializing
apreq, and so my current,
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 02:16 -0400, Zero Altitude wrote:
I apologize: can you clarify the watchpoint suggestion? If you mean
while running the program as in, while apache is still running and
not crashed, this is virtually impossible -- as I said, the segfault
occurs only once in a few
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 12:22 -0700, Chris Dukes wrote:
Your test is including the '-c', allowing it to pass.
OK. After I sent the patch, I realised that you toolchain only had a
problem with the whole thing during the link phase. Sorry :-(
Can you try replacing AC_COMPILE_IFELSE in my patch
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 12:54 -0500, Chris Dukes wrote:
xlc_r -qcpluscmt
Yeah, we should only use -fno-strict-aliasing with GCC.
--
Bojan
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 09:03 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Yeah, we should only use -fno-strict-aliasing with GCC.
Can you let me know if this helps? You'll need to run buildconf, of
course...
--
Bojan
Index: acinclude.m4
As the maintainer of libapreq2 for Fedora, I had to do a bit of
pkgconfig hacking recently on current libapreq2 (2.09-rc2) in order to
get it to be multilib compliant.
You can see that work here:
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/rpms/libapreq2/devel/
The files in question are
Are we going to have 2.09 release? It's been quite some time since RC2
went out...
--
Bojan
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:46 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Just got a report from Fedora build system that libapreq2-2.09-rc1
failed to build.
Sorry, I meant rc2 here.
--
Bojan
On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 14:04 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Changing APREQ build system to link to APR/APU docs with a specific
version number would be the correct thing to do.
Something like this, maybe.
--
Bojan
Index: build/doxygen.conf.in
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 23:43 -0800, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Please download, test, and report back on the following
candidate tarball:
http://people.apache.org/~pgollucci/apreq2/libapreq2-2.09.tar.gz
http://people.apache.org/~pgollucci/apreq2/libapreq2-2.09.tar.gz.asc
On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 21:40 -0700, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Can you clue me in on this Fedora stuff and pardon my cluelessness.
I'm not really an FE expert, but I'll give it a go :-)
Do you test build it first, or just submit it to that service and it does
everything ?
Normally, I'll run
On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 19:46 -0700, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Please download, test, and VOTE on the following
candidate tarball:
http://people.apache.org/~pgollucci/apreq2/libapreq2-2.08-RC5.tar.gz
Should appear in Fedora Extras soon.
--
Bojan
On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 03:39 -0700, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Please download, test, and VOTE on the following
candidate tarball:
http://people.apache.org/~pgollucci/apreq2/libapreq2-2.08-RC3.tar.gz
Weird. I'm getting errors when unpacking the tarball:
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 05:47 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
What's the MD5 supposed to be?
Sorry. I'm getting here:
3b8b52c261c72adc971b656ca77f6eab libapreq2-2.08-RC3.tar.gz
--
Bojan
On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 13:41 -0700, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Works fine, I just untarred it here:
http://people.apache.org/~pgollucci/apreq/libapreq2-2.08
OK. I'm off to work now anyway - I'll try unpacking on machines there.
--
Bojan
Quoting Bojan Smojver [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
OK. I'm off to work now anyway - I'll try unpacking on machines there.
Works on Solaris Sparc and RHEL4 x86_64, doesn't on Fedora Core 5
x86_64/i386. Go figure...
--
Bojan
Quoting Bojan Smojver [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Works on Solaris Sparc and RHEL4 x86_64, doesn't on Fedora Core 5
x86_64/i386. Go figure...
New FC bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198305
--
Bojan
Quoting Philip M. Gollucci [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Should I roll another one or do you think its just that box ?
You can if you want, but the file as it is may be just fine. RHEL4 and
Solaris 9 don't have any problems with the file. I'm guessing Apache
boxes are FreeBSD and that works too.
Quoting Bojan Smojver [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Looks like the offsetof() provided by the platform isn't being used.
Which in turn causes a lot of casting all over the place, which
creates the aliasing problem? Maybe?
Nah, it isn't that... Fails just the same with native offsetof() :-(
--
Bojan
On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 20:31 -0400, Joe Schaefer wrote:
APR_RING_UNSPLICE(f, l, link);
APR_RING_SPLICE_TAIL(out-list, f, l, apr_bucket, link);
This is the right approach, I think. But the person who'd be
in the best place to test/commit it is Bojan. Just be sure
to
Quoting Philip M. Gollucci [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Seems to be Fedora Core X specific.
Happens on x84_64 as well and with 2.07. Rebuilding the package in
Fedora Extras 5 now.
--
Bojan
Quoting Joe Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At least now it's a bit clearer why the no-strict-aliasing
optimization is getting confused ;-)
Hey, speak for yourself ;-)
--
Bojan
Quoting Philip M. Gollucci [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Please download, test, and report back on the following
candidate tarball:
Builds as RPM on Fedora Core 5 on my x86_64 box. I'll try the same in
Fedora Extras development tree as well. The spec file required some
changes in order to build. I'm
If memory serves me right, 2.07 didn't have any major API or other
incompatible changes when compared to 2.06, right? Before I push 2.07
package in Fedora Core 4 Extras, I'd like to make sure I didn't
misunderstand that...
--
Bojan
Just for kicks, I tried that today with Apache 2.1.8-beta. The
instructions are a bit stale in the INSTALL script. Here are the
questions to the points mentioned under static install:
1. What is the CPPFLAGS -I supposed to be? Top level libapreq2 source
directory? Or some other directory under it
On Sun, 2005-09-25 at 18:45 +0300, Eli Marmor wrote:
If anybody else has anything to add about the differences between these
library, or even about another library which does the work, please
speak now or forever hold your peace ;-) (just kidding...)
Only because of the forever hold your
Quoting VilleSkyttä [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thanks, committed, will be in 2_06-2.*.
Awesome! I see that the binaries hit the mirrors, so all of us Fedorans
will be kept happy :-)
Once again, thank you for putting the effort in to make libapreq2 part
of Fedora Extras.
--
Bojan
Quoting VilleSkyttä [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
FYI, libapreq2 2.06 RPMS for Fedora Core 4 (and soon development) are
available from Fedora Extras, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras
Any chance you could include *.tag files in the docs directory of
libapreq2-devel package?
These are very useful
61 matches
Mail list logo
