Re: [Announce] Apache Portable Runtime APR 1.7.0 Released

wo months would be good. However Apache foo is a *major* piece of the planetary software ecosystem possibly more so than ISC software. So a quarterly schedule ( 3 months ) may be more reasonable. > Since I started thinking about it, I'm wondering whether we should push > towards apr-util-1.7.0, or just get to apr-2.0.0 already. Other thoughts > or observations? Neither at this time. -- Dennis Clarke RISC-V/SPARC/PPC/ARM/CISC UNIX and Linux spoken GreyBeard and suspenders optional

Re: [result] [vote] Release apr-1.7.0 ?

E="www/conf/mime.types" -D SERVER_CONFIG_FILE="www/conf/httpd.conf" beta $ What baffles me is the APR-UTIL 1.5.3 version seen above. I am absolutely using 1.6.1 here. -- Dennis Clarke RISC-V/SPARC/PPC/ARM/CISC UNIX and Linux spoken GreyBeard and suspenders optional

Re: [result] [vote] Release apr-1.7.0 ?

ting build/pkg/pkginfo config.status: creating apr-1-config config.status: creating apr.pc config.status: creating test/Makefile config.status: creating test/internal/Makefile config.status: creating include/arch/unix/apr_private.h config.status: executing libtool commands libtoolT: No such file or directory config.status: executing default commands beta $ -- Dennis Clarke RISC-V/SPARC/PPC/ARM/CISC UNIX and Linux spoken GreyBeard and suspenders optional

Re: APR 1.6.5 on Solaris 10 SPARC : All tests passed.

On 09/15/2018 08:16 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: No worries, thanks for all the follow up. I am a little concerned that some 'fix' in a later ptf has changed poll semantics in an undesirable way, but we will just be patient and wait for word. Again, TY, Small annoying patch : ***

APR 1.6.5 on Solaris 10 SPARC : All tests passed.

All tests passed. Took a clean room to do it. If there are problems they are outside of 1.6.5 somewhere. An entirely new instance with nothing interesting installed or running : $ psrinfo -pv The physical processor has 8 virtual processors (0-7) SPARC64-VII+ (portid 1024 impl 0x7 ver

Re: APR 1.6.5 on Solaris 10 SPARC won't pass or even complete tests

Some process called "./testall -v" is running and also doing nothing. Zero activity there. Truss says so. # ps -ef | grep 29868 dclarke 29868 26961 0 19:48:54 pts/14 0:00 /usr/bin/bash -c teststatus=0; \progfailed=""; \for prog in testlockperf test root 5561 12826 0

Re: Solaris 10 current make check failures [Was: apr-1.6.5 release]

On 09/14/2018 12:10 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: Although 1.6.5 has flown, please do follow up with your observations. This isn't going well. Two systems. Similar configs. Both are stuck in testpoll test for a while now. Well over a half hour. https://i.imgur.com/V6IHf9J.png I will try a

Re: [VOTE] apr-1.6.5 release

On 09/11/2018 05:48 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:33 PM Dennis Clarke wrote: testsock: Line 376: Cannot test if connect completes synchronously This one really depends on the time taken by the system to connect localhost non-blocking. If it's immediate

Re: [VOTE] apr-1.6.5 release

On 09/11/2018 05:10 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:16 PM Dennis Clarke <mailto:dcla...@blastwave.org>> wrote: The way to answer this question is to rebuild apr 1.6.3 (perhaps 1.6.0) on this specific machine to compare the results and ensure we haven't i

Re: [VOTE] apr-1.6.5 release

ake[1]: Leaving directory '/usr/local/build/apr-1.6.5_SunOS5.10_sparc64vii+.001/test' Dennis Clarke

Re: 1.6 release?

On 08/24/2018 12:48 PM, Eric Covener wrote: On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:37 PM Dennis Clarke wrote: On 08/24/2018 09:16 AM, Eric Covener wrote: Starting a new thread as potential RM's may be filtering bugzilla emails. There are a lot of reports of PR62644 from solaris users of httpd, can

Re: 1.6 release?

On 08/24/2018 09:16 AM, Eric Covener wrote: Starting a new thread as potential RM's may be filtering bugzilla emails. There are a lot of reports of PR62644 from solaris users of httpd, can anyone RM? I am running a few versions of httpd on solaris and have not seen any issues. Is there a

Re: Question on Unix Source for APR-util 1.6.1 and APR iconv 1.2.2

On 06/29/2018 03:57 PM, Duttera, Scott A CIV DISA SEL5 (US) wrote: We are attempting to compile Apache 2.4 on a Unix system here, and got hit with prereqs by the compiler for the APR libraries. When we downloaded the Unix Source for the APR-util 1.6.1 and APR iconv 1.2.2 software from the

Re: splitting [VOTE] thread of APR-UTIL 1.6.0

On 06/11/2017 05:37 PM, Nick Kew wrote: On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 08:04:56 -0500 William A Rowe Jr wrote: We've voted on this package a number of times, it probably does have the votes if we search through these original two vote threads, but just to be clear I'll spin a new

Re: [VOTE] Release APR-1.6.1 and APR-UTIL 1.6.0

On 06/08/2017 10:56 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Dennis Clarke <dcla...@blastwave.org> wrote: On 06/07/2017 08:16 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: As I said... checking out and building 'your own tarball' on a conventional system absolutely beats convinci

Re: [VOTE] Release APR-1.6.1 and APR-UTIL 1.6.0

On 06/07/2017 08:16 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: As I said... checking out and building 'your own tarball' on a conventional system absolutely beats convincing AIX, Solaris By "conventional" I think you mean "Linux" or anything with a reasonable GNU toolchain and we all know that won't happen

Re: [VOTE] Release APR-1.6.1 and APR-UTIL 1.6.0

On 06/07/2017 06:20 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: https://github.com/apache/apr/tree/1.6.x?files=1 is our GitHub mirror of the 1.6 branch. Note you need to run ./buildconf - this requires libtool, autoconf and python. python? really? I need python to run buildconf? uggg ... that is a

Re: [VOTE] Release APR-1.6.1 and APR-UTIL 1.6.0

On 06/07/2017 03:28 PM, Nick Kew wrote: On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:16:23 -0500 William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:11 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:24 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: Greg and

Re: Target 1.6.1?

On 05/30/2017 11:06 AM, Nick Kew wrote: It's looking fine since Bill's surgical work last week. I'm minded to T apr-1.6.1 tomorrow, and put it up along with apr-util-1.6.0 for vote as Release Candidates. Any objections? Certainly none from me however I have yet to get my Apache 2.4.x builds

Re: [VOTE] Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?

r two before I'm fit for any such thing. Just before the great tarball release to the world mind if I have another compile and test run with my C99 POSIX strict solaris compilers? Dennis Clarke ps: I assume there is a pre-release tarball hanging around

Re: apr-1.6.0 and apr-util-1.6.0 pass all tests on Solaris 10 Sparc .. however httpd fails

At the moment compile of httpd 2.4.25 stops very early with : "/usr/local/include/apr-1/apr.h", line 614: #error: no decision has been made on APR_PATH_MAX for your platform So perhaps a quick define here would work. [ self reply ] Really we should get from limits.h : 99 #ifdef

apr-1.6.0 and apr-util-1.6.0 pass all tests on Solaris 10 Sparc .. however httpd fails

: #error: no decision has been made on APR_PATH_MAX for your platform So perhaps a quick define here would work. Dennis Clarke

Re: apr-util-1.6.0 on Solaris issues

Let us know if that makes a difference, perhaps a stale flavor of apr is discovered first? When in doubt look for the trivial first :-) Loaded mysql driver OK. Failed to open mysql[] Loaded sqlite3 driver OK. Opened sqlite3[] OK create table create table test successful

Re: apr-util-1.6.0 on Solaris issues

beta $ ldd -d ./dbd/.libs/apr_dbd_mysql-1.so libmysqlclient.so.18 => /opt/mysql/mysql/lib/libmysqlclient.so.18 libsocket.so.1 =>/lib/64/libsocket.so.1 libnsl.so.1 => /lib/64/libnsl.so.1 libm.so.2 => /lib/64/libm.so.2 librt.so.1 =>

apr-util-1.6.0 on Solaris issues

So in another thread I have been going over this and over this and finding little nits and getting past them and I do get a clean compile but .. there are a few issues : beta $ ldd -d ./dbd/.libs/apr_dbd_mysql-1.so libmysqlclient.so.18 => /opt/mysql/mysql/lib/libmysqlclient.so.18

Re: 1.6.0 release candidates

On 05/10/2017 01:37 PM, Nick Kew wrote: On Wed, 10 May 2017 14:05:51 +0100 Nick Kew wrote: But if you got through "configure" without it checking for expat, you would seem to have found a bug. Whoops! That should have read one or the other of expat and libxml2, since those

Re: 1.6.0 release candidates

On 05/10/2017 01:37 PM, Nick Kew wrote: On Wed, 10 May 2017 14:05:51 +0100 Nick Kew wrote: But if you got through "configure" without it checking for expat, you would seem to have found a bug. Whoops! That should have read one or the other of expat and libxml2, since those

Re: 1.6.0 release candidates

On 05/10/2017 01:37 PM, Nick Kew wrote: On Wed, 10 May 2017 14:05:51 +0100 Nick Kew wrote: But if you got through "configure" without it checking for expat, you would seem to have found a bug. Whoops! That should have read one or the other of expat and libxml2, since those

Re: 1.6.0 release candidates

On 05/10/2017 01:05 PM, Nick Kew wrote: On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:33:13 + Dennis Clarke <dcla...@blastwave.org> wrote: So that seems to be gone from apr-1.6.0 and I hope expat-2.2.0 solves the issue. Yep, that's (due to be) part of the release notes. But if you got through &quo

Re: 1.6.0 release candidates

On 05/07/2017 08:37 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Dennis Clarke <dcla...@blastwave.org> wrote: node000 $ echo $CPPFLAGS -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/ssl/include -D_TS_ERRNO -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE [] During the compile is where

Re: 1.6.0 release candidates

On 05/07/2017 08:37 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Dennis Clarke <dcla...@blastwave.org> wrote: node000 $ echo $CPPFLAGS -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/ssl/include -D_TS_ERRNO -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE [] During the compile is where

Re: 1.6.0 release candidates

On 05/07/2017 12:28 PM, Nick Kew wrote: On Sun, 7 May 2017 03:01:55 + Dennis Clarke <dcla...@blastwave.org> wrote: Where is this 1.6.0 tarball such that I may give it a careful build on my Solaris servers ? I don't see it at http://archive.apache.org/dist/apr/ http://apr.apache.o

Re: 1.6.0 release candidates

On 05/07/2017 12:54 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: So my blocking concern is that APR has never shipped an unready, disabled by default feature. I don't mind not ready for prime time but we traditionally called such things alpha or beta releases. I am not worried about a specific platform, but

Re: [Bug 45615] "Large Files not supported" with 64-bit build

On 01/10/2017 01:12 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: Hi Dennis, Good day fine Sir. Firstly, sorry for awaking what seems like a long dead cold bug but it really isn't a "Large Files not supported" bug as opposed to just a message that needs to be tweaked. Indeed yes this is a 64 bit build and so

Re: [Bug 45615] "Large Files not supported" with 64-bit build

On 01/10/2017 12:57 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Dennis Clarke <dcla...@blastwave.org> wrote: re: https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45615 re: long running (blocking?) apr_skiplist test. I think we can close the bug about Large File Support an

[Bug 45615] "Large Files not supported" with 64-bit build

re: https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45615 I think it best to follow up here as per suggestions by Yann and Rainer wherein I can run further tests and experiments to determine what is happening here in these Niagara class systems. Firstly, sorry for awaking what seems like a long