Re: Solution to apr stdio/msvc crt/service handles and logging
http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/apr-1.x-win32-nohandle.patch FYI - that one does not apply cleanly to apr-1.2 (it's trunk) if you want the easily applied flavor, that would be; http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/apr-1.2-win32-nohandle.patch The httpd patch applies with little pain.
Re: Fixing protocol violations in mod_proxy
On 09/27/2007 12:42 AM, Nick Kew wrote: * Chunked request with too big chunks: proxy returns 413 Verdict: look at ProxyIOBufferSize * Chunked response with too big chunks: the response is lost completely. Verdict: serious bug!!! What do you mean by too big chunks? * Retry tests: Proxy does not retry when backend aborts Verdict: Potential enhancement. Possibly related to PR38763. See also http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] for further discussion and references on this topic. Regards Rüdiger
Re: [Fwd: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 43491] New: - Piped ErrorLog regression: two piped program started, one attached to tty]
On 09/27/2007 12:40 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Still debugging, but go ahead and commit your patch; tag it up for backports. You already have my +1 that it's the right fix. As the patch is part of your larger patch I wait to commit to make it easier for others to apply the larger patch. Regards Rüdiger
FakeBasicAuth changes
Did something change in 2.2.6 regarding FakeBasicAuth ? I always get now 'user /...: authentication failure for /path/: Password Mismatch'. It worked with version 2.0.59, with the same config (see below). Does 2.2.6 it use another hash algorithm by default or so ? In the debug log, I can find: Faking HTTP Basic Auth header: Authorization: Basic L0M9QkUvU1Q9QmVsZ2l1bS9MPUJydXNzZWxzL089QXBwcm9hY2ggQmVsZ2l1bS9PVT1BcGFjaGUgdGVzdCBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZS9DTj0xMjcuMC4wLjE6cGFzc3dvcmQ= What is this header contents ? Isn't it supposed to be base64 ? I cannot decode it. Thanks Nick SSLVerifyClient require Location / SSLRequireSSL SSLOptions +FakeBasicAuth Authname NSA protected site for countries AuthType Basic AuthUserFile conf/users.auth Require valid-user /Location user.auth (DN coming from OpenSSL): /...:xxj31ZMTZzkVA
Re: FakeBasicAuth changes
On ons, 2007-09-26 at 18:06 +0200, Nick Gearls wrote: In the debug log, I can find: Faking HTTP Basic Auth header: Authorization: Basic L0M9QkUvU1Q9QmVsZ2l1bS9MPUJydXNzZWxzL089QXBwcm9hY2ggQmVsZ2l1bS9PVT1BcGFjaGUgdGVzdCBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZS9DTj0xMjcuMC4wLjE6cGFzc3dvcmQ= What is this header contents ? Isn't it supposed to be base64 ? I cannot decode it. It's base64. Decoding it gives /C=BE/ST=Belgium/L=Brussels/O=Approach Belgium/OU=Apache test certificate/CN=127.0.0.1:password Regards Henrik signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: 2.2.7
2007/9/27, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [...] Here at [EMAIL PROTECTED] we are trying to create a better server, and having fun in the process. As long as we don't splinter the effort of improving httpd server or make more work for the project members, we'll all have fun at it. I'm not picking on you, let's solve the issues. Bill I still don't want to feed that troll, but, enough of it ... having fun in the process is largely over-stated... I remember, for example, the territorial flame war about mod_mem_cache that had nothing fun (where davi wrote he was leaving the mailing/dev ...). And the we, for fun against you, for profit argument is well demonstrated by a more recent mail of Nick Kew: Some apache developers, including myself[1], make a living doing contract work for companies with development needs, such as yours. If you have a budget, I'll be happy to talk to you. The fact you're looking to make it available as open source will qualify you for a reduction in my standard rate. (And you talk about spam regarding apachelounge, please...) Thus, Apache commiters or developers are developping for fun (sometimes for fame) AND profit. And that's not my opinion, but what Nick says. Apache is a way to make money (consulting, conferences, etc.), and not only to develop a better server. I had a nice experience about it with a patch I submitted regarding mod_setenvif, discussed on IRC with nick who told me it was redundant with mod_filter (at a time were mod_filter was not production ready, and that patch was already deployed and easily code-reviewed ). The features provided by this patch were (and still are) very useful for some users (customers of my company, and lot other according to the downloading of it, including Brian Akins), easier in a lot of way to manage than Nick's mod_filter, and was +1 in this mailing list (including by a commiter). But, it was/is ignored, refused, etc. Please, just stop to make argumentation opposing opensource or community people against business people, and adding we may coexist peacefully blablabla. It sounds to me like all is about business here, and that's not a problem for me, but please don't make innocent readers of this mailing list believe that it is about something like hippie - opensource community here. Regarding the threatening mail from Roy T. Fielding, : There would not be a windows version of Apache without Bill's efforts to keep it alive, and there won't be one in the future if windows developers refuse to participate in the development mailing lists HERE. Really ? Do you mean that without William Rowe, Covalent ( http://www.covalent.net/about/management.html ) would have chosen an other opensource product. Are you sure that no other company at all would have found a way (or a brilliant developer) to make money from apache certified builds ? I really don't like the kind of disinformation you are making here, so please, stop politics and marketing here, and let's talk about development. And please, don't misunderstand me : I fully appreciate the work everyone is doing here, including Nick's and William's. I particularly thanks them for their availability and politeness on IRC and this mailing list. Regards. -- *Francois Pesce*
Re: Fixing protocol violations in mod_proxy
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:51:50 +0200 Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 09/27/2007 12:42 AM, Nick Kew wrote: * Chunked request with too big chunks: proxy returns 413 Verdict: look at ProxyIOBufferSize * Chunked response with too big chunks: the response is lost completely. Verdict: serious bug!!! What do you mean by too big chunks? 16K. Not unreasonably huge. DUT MUST handle chunked request with a 16385Byte-long chunk-ext-val (test_case/rfc2616/chunked-1p1-longValExt-16385-toSrv) DUT MUST handle chunked response with a 16385Byte-long quoted chunk-ext-val sent to an HTTP/1.0 client (test_case/rfc2616/chunked-1p0-longQValExt-16385-toClt) DUT MUST handle chunked response with a 16385Byte-long chunk-ext-val sent to an HTTP/1.1 client (test_case/rfc2616/chunked-1p1-longValExt-16385-toClt) Actually I need to clarify those testcases: what exactly has been abbreviated from the (slightly confusing) logs. * Retry tests: Proxy does not retry when backend aborts Verdict: Potential enhancement. Possibly related to PR38763. See also http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, that's not something I'm contemplating anytime soon:-) -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/
Re: FakeBasicAuth changes
My Base64 decoder did not decode it :-( Anyway, I always get 'user /...: authentication failure for /path/: Password Mismatch', although my password file looks correct: /C=BE/ST=Belgium/L=Brussels/O=Approach Belgium/OU=Apache test certificate/CN=127.0.0.1:xxj31ZMTZzkVA Does 2.2.6 it use another hash algorithm by default or so ? For info, I use SSLVerifyClient require Location / SSLRequireSSL SSLOptions +FakeBasicAuth Authname NSA protected site for countries AuthType Basic AuthUserFile conf/users.auth Require valid-user /Location Henrik Nordstrom wrote: On ons, 2007-09-26 at 18:06 +0200, Nick Gearls wrote: In the debug log, I can find: Faking HTTP Basic Auth header: Authorization: Basic L0M9QkUvU1Q9QmVsZ2l1bS9MPUJydXNzZWxzL089QXBwcm9hY2ggQmVsZ2l1bS9PVT1BcGFjaGUgdGVzdCBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZS9DTj0xMjcuMC4wLjE6cGFzc3dvcmQ= What is this header contents ? Isn't it supposed to be base64 ? I cannot decode it. It's base64. Decoding it gives /C=BE/ST=Belgium/L=Brussels/O=Approach Belgium/OU=Apache test certificate/CN=127.0.0.1:password Regards Henrik
Re: [Fwd: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 43491] New: - Piped ErrorLog regression: two piped program started, one attached to tty]
On Sep 26, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 09/26/2007 07:30 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: In the current log.c code, although the write-end of an initial error logger is still held by the parent --- until the second logger process has kicked off. It seems someone's inherited that write end. I have a two line patch attached that Funny. Two people getting to the same patch independently :-). So yes, I think your patch does the correct thing. +1 Needs some review before we kick off 2.2.7 into the real world, since we close that write end of the logger right after we've launched the logger. Wondering if this might not be a prefork, worker or event mpm specific failure case. I don't think so. +1 as well...
Re: Fixing protocol violations in mod_proxy
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:58:01AM +0100, Nick Kew wrote: On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:51:50 +0200 Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 09/27/2007 12:42 AM, Nick Kew wrote: * Chunked response with too big chunks: the response is lost completely. Verdict: serious bug!!! What do you mean by too big chunks? 16K. Not unreasonably huge. DUT MUST handle chunked request with a 16385Byte-long chunk-ext-val (test_case/rfc2616/chunked-1p1-longValExt-16385-toSrv) From the name I'd presume these are testing a long chunk-extension, not long chunks. There is no 2616 requirement to handle arbitrarily long chunk-extensions so it's a meaningless test, unless httpd is not failing appropriately. (the chunk-extension is an optional token which can be passed after the chunk-size and is never used in practice) joe
Need to divert the request
Hi, I have involved in developing a module which needs to divert the incoming request to almost a new URL. I have changed the uri info in the request_rec, but it seems, changes in request_rec doesn't affect the request processing. I have implemented this in mod_proxy. Any help to divert the url request to new url without browser knowledge? Thanks in Advance!
Re: Need to divert the request
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 prasanna wrote: Any help to divert the url request to new url without browser knowledge? mod_rewrite ? - -- Arturo Buanzo Busleiman - Consultor Independiente en Seguridad Informatica Servicios Ofrecidos: http://www.buanzo.com.ar/pro/ Unase a los Foros GNU/Buanzo - La palabra Comunidad en su maxima expresion. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG+65tAlpOsGhXcE0RCiMKAJ91/CVO2/SmYjk4rTKBkj+QErmofwCeKZ47 MxUsyb6NJWyAHj+sIOsqYf8= =pbwS -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: 2.2.7
Regarding the threatening mail from Roy T. Fielding, : There would not be a windows version of Apache without Bill's efforts to keep it alive, and there won't be one in the future if windows developers refuse to participate in the development mailing lists HERE. Really ? Do you mean that without William Rowe, Covalent ( http:// www.covalent.net/about/management.html ) would have chosen an other opensource product. Are you sure that no other company at all would have found a way (or a brilliant developer) to make money from apache certified builds ? Um ... No, that's not at all what's being said. Quite apart from the history of the founding of that company ... but that's utterly irrelevant here. Companies aren't participants in Apache projects. Individuals are. What's being said is that Apache for Windows is a volunteer effort, and that William Rowe is, at this moment, the most active of those volunteers. It's not a threat at all. It's a reality. Furthermore, Apache for Windows will only continue to exist if there is a steady flow of these volunteers. This (dev@) is the forum in which they operate. This, also, is not a threat, but a plain statement of the reality of how this operates. Likewise, Apache for BeOs existed due to the efforts of volunteers. It no longer exists, because there are no longer volunteers to make it exist. Again, reality, not threat. I'm getting rather weary of the tone of this conversation. I'm still naive enough to believe that most of us here truly believe in the notion of Open Source. I'm also grown up enough to understand that most of us here have a monthly water bill that we have to pay, and that making money is actually a very handy thing, and not something to treat as dirty to talk about. Steffen, we welcome your participation. You have fixes that make 2.2.6 more usable on Windows. Great. Submit patches so that 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 contain those fixes. Help us make the world better. -- Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it. Mahatma Ghandi
Re: 2.2.7
On 27.09.2007, at 10:05, François wrote: 2007/9/27, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [...] Here at [EMAIL PROTECTED] we are trying to create a better server, and having fun in the process. As long as we don't splinter the effort of improving httpd server or make more work for the project members, we'll all have fun at it. I'm not picking on you, let's solve the issues. Bill ... And the we, for fun against you, for profit argument is well demonstrated by a more recent mail of Nick Kew: Some apache developers, including myself[1], make a living doing contract work for companies with development needs, such as yours. If you have a budget, I'll be happy to talk to you. The fact you're looking to make it available as open source will qualify you for a reduction in my standard rate. (And you talk about spam regarding apachelounge, please...) Thus, Apache commiters or developers are developping for fun (sometimes for fame) AND profit. ... Sure, we all have to pay our bills but you're overlooking a difference: Nick just replied to an inquiry offering his (and others services); he doesn't advertise any revenue-generating site after every release etc. etc... ;-0 Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries in a transparent and documented way *here* and we could even distribute them from apache.org/dist (plus mirrors) to help the win community even more! Just my 2c... Cheers, Erik
Re: Fixing protocol violations in mod_proxy
On tor, 2007-09-27 at 14:08 +0100, Joe Orton wrote: From the name I'd presume these are testing a long chunk-extension, not long chunks. There is no 2616 requirement to handle arbitrarily long chunk-extensions so it's a meaningless test, unless httpd is not failing appropriately. (the chunk-extension is an optional token which can be passed after the chunk-size and is never used in practice) Well, technically there is no bound on the size of the chunk extensions in RFC2616 (same for almost all HTTP stuff, not only chunk extensions), but yes.. Regards Henri signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: 2.2.7
2007/9/27, Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Um ... No, that's not at all what's being said. Quite apart from the history of the founding of that company ... but that's utterly irrelevant here. Companies aren't participants in Apache projects. Individuals are. IMHO, this kind of subtleties concerns marketing. When a company pays someone to contribute to a software development, it is highly the same than to invest into this software, however it gets its money back : consulting (they have got commiters, their customers can directly check what they're able to do), lobbying (commiters, they can publish their customer's modification to avoid a re-patch at every new version), marketing (look, they are promoting open source). What's being said is that Apache for Windows is a volunteer effort, and that William Rowe is, at this moment, the most active of those volunteers. It's not a threat at all. It's a reality. I didn't say that quoted text was the threat, but that the whole mail was threatening. Concerning the volunteer effort, the reality is that a lot of the current and active commiters are making it for money or fame, to sell consulting time or books or take a salary from a company happy to have an apache member among its employees. But, don't mistake: in this case, the governance of an open-source project is not independent of the money: the excerpt of Nick Kew's mail is a good example of it. If that user's feature request were really necessary, why don't let a volunteer develop it ? And it is obvious and logical that if a feature or a bugfix is prioritized in a company such as IBM, Covalent or whichever that pays an employee as a commiter, it will be fixed first, no matter of how many volunteer's patches are hanging in bugzilla or in attachment of an httpd-dev mail. Furthermore, Apache for Windows will only continue to exist if there is a steady flow of these volunteers. This (dev@) is the forum in which they operate. This, also, is not a threat, but a plain statement of the reality of how this operates. I do agree, but aren't ApacheLounge people volunteers to make things move ? I really don't care about Apache for Windows, but, what about creating commiters access for these guys if they want to be active ? Likewise, Apache for BeOs existed due to the efforts of volunteers. It no longer exists, because there are no longer volunteers to make it exist. Again, reality, not threat. I'm getting rather weary of the tone of this conversation. I'm still naive enough to believe that most of us here truly believe in the notion of Open Source. I'm also grown up enough to understand that most of us here have a monthly water bill that we have to pay, and that making money is actually a very handy thing, and not something to treat as dirty to talk about. I quickly browsed apachelounge forum, it seems that they didn't hide their code modifications, thus, that's still open source. I didn't talk about free software here. The notion of Open Source is not incompatible with business. What make me weary in this situation is the tone of people pointing at AL as if it were an ugly duck doing a disservice to the windows user community, spaming, promoting their own business, etc. Steffen, we welcome your participation. You have fixes that make 2.2.6 more usable on Windows. Great. Submit patches so that 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 contain those fixes. Help us make the world better. +1 2007/9/27, Erik Abele [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sure, we all have to pay our bills but you're overlooking a difference: Nick just replied to an inquiry offering his (and others services); he doesn't advertise any revenue-generating site after every release etc. etc... ;-0 Sure, he just signs with a web site that affiliates to sell his book ;-) (but I repeat : that's not a problem for me). Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries in a transparent and documented way *here* and we could even distribute them from apache.org/dist (plus mirrors) to help the win community even more! Then, create a svn access to apache lounge people that patch httpd, and stop to flame/troll/point at these guys. At this time, they will maybe be responsable enough to stop the spam and adopt the same business model as the other commiter : consulting, lobbying or marketing. And that will completely reflect a general feeling : it is all about making money in the most discrete way. period CR-LF -- *Francois Pesce*
RE: 2.2.7
Very well put Rich. Ed Herring AMR2 BaR Administrator 512-314-1133 Cell Phone 512-917-8480 From: Rich Bowen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:39 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: 2.2.7 Regarding the threatening mail from Roy T. Fielding, : There would not be a windows version of Apache without Bill's efforts to keep it alive, and there won't be one in the future if windows developers refuse to participate in the development mailing lists HERE. Really ? Do you mean that without William Rowe, Covalent ( http://www.covalent.net/about/management.html ) would have chosen an other opensource product. Are you sure that no other company at all would have found a way (or a brilliant developer) to make money from apache certified builds ? Um ... No, that's not at all what's being said. Quite apart from the history of the founding of that company ... but that's utterly irrelevant here. Companies aren't participants in Apache projects. Individuals are. What's being said is that Apache for Windows is a volunteer effort, and that William Rowe is, at this moment, the most active of those volunteers. It's not a threat at all. It's a reality. Furthermore, Apache for Windows will only continue to exist if there is a steady flow of these volunteers. This (dev@) is the forum in which they operate. This, also, is not a threat, but a plain statement of the reality of how this operates. Likewise, Apache for BeOs existed due to the efforts of volunteers. It no longer exists, because there are no longer volunteers to make it exist. Again, reality, not threat. I'm getting rather weary of the tone of this conversation. I'm still naive enough to believe that most of us here truly believe in the notion of Open Source. I'm also grown up enough to understand that most of us here have a monthly water bill that we have to pay, and that making money is actually a very handy thing, and not something to treat as dirty to talk about. Steffen, we welcome your participation. You have fixes that make 2.2.6 more usable on Windows. Great. Submit patches so that 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 contain those fixes. Help us make the world better. -- Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it. Mahatma Ghandi
Re: FakeBasicAuth changes
On 09/26/2007 05:58 PM, Nick Gearls wrote:
My Base64 decoder did not decode it :-(
Anyway, I always get 'user /...: authentication failure for /path/:
Password Mismatch', although my password file looks correct:
/C=BE/ST=Belgium/L=Brussels/O=Approach Belgium/OU=Apache test
certificate/CN=127.0.0.1:xxj31ZMTZzkVA
Does 2.2.6 it use another hash algorithm by default or so ?
1. What is your platform?
2. Have you tried with the md5 password ($apr1$nvFsZ/..$kPIYJ444oUVBALuYT2nZJ0)
or the SHA password ({SHA}W6ph5Mm5Pz8GgiULbPgzG37mj9g=)?
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: FakeBasicAuth changes
I tried both MD5 and SHA-1.
I'm on Windows XP/2003.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 09/26/2007 05:58 PM, Nick Gearls wrote:
My Base64 decoder did not decode it :-(
Anyway, I always get 'user /...: authentication failure for /path/:
Password Mismatch', although my password file looks correct:
/C=BE/ST=Belgium/L=Brussels/O=Approach Belgium/OU=Apache test
certificate/CN=127.0.0.1:xxj31ZMTZzkVA
Does 2.2.6 it use another hash algorithm by default or so ?
1. What is your platform?
2. Have you tried with the md5 password ($apr1$nvFsZ/..$kPIYJ444oUVBALuYT2nZJ0)
or the SHA password ({SHA}W6ph5Mm5Pz8GgiULbPgzG37mj9g=)?
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: 2.2.7
Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries in a transparent and documented way *here* and we could even distribute them from apache.org/dist (plus mirrors) to help the win community even more! I could provide x64 binaries if there is interest in them. I usually push them out to my site within a week of the source release. I'm not 100% sure my method of creating them is the same as the ASF's but I can change my way if there is interest. -- ~Jorge
Re: 2.2.7
On 09/27/2007 05:04 PM, François wrote: 2007/9/27, Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Um ... No, that's not at all what's being said. Quite apart from the history of the founding of that company ... but that's utterly irrelevant here. Companies aren't participants in Apache projects. Individuals are. IMHO, this kind of subtleties concerns marketing. When a company pays someone to contribute to a software development, it is highly the same than to invest into this software, however it gets its money back : consulting (they have got commiters, their customers can directly check what they're able to do), lobbying (commiters, they can publish their customer's modification to avoid a re-patch at every new version), marketing (look, they are promoting open source). It is not really the same. If the commiter leaves the company and it is the only commiter in this company than there is no commit access for this company any longer. But the new company he starts at will have commit access now. I say commit access because people need to wear their Apache hat when commiting not their company hat when commiting. That does not mean that you cannot bring forward your company interest when commiting, but you are not allowed to commit something from which you know that it is against the interest of the ASF project. People here understand hat switching very well. Then, create a svn access to apache lounge people that patch httpd, and stop to flame/troll/point at these guys. We are a meritocracy (http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy). So they have to earn commit access. Furthermore earning commit access is not only about code itself but much more about community and the style of doing development. But as others already said their contributions are welcome and continued contributions are the way to commitership. Regards Rüdiger
Re: 2.2.7
On Sep 27, 2007, at 11:04 AM, François wrote: 2007/9/27, Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Furthermore, Apache for Windows will only continue to exist if there is a steady flow of these volunteers. This (dev@) is the forum in which they operate. This, also, is not a threat, but a plain statement of the reality of how this operates. I do agree, but aren't ApacheLounge people volunteers to make things move ? I really don't care about Apache for Windows, but, what about creating commiters access for these guys if they want to be active ? As we all know, commit access is something earned, and it's not only based on your coding abilities but how well you work within the collaborative, communal aspect of ASF projects. Official ASF development is done here, on this list. So that would be a good place for people to start who are interested in really contributing to Apache... right here. Post bugs here and on BUGZ. Post analysis results here... patches too. Suggest improvements here. But to instead try to encourage that development to happen elsewhere, instead of here does not help at all.
x64 binary build instructions was Re: 2.2.7
On Sep 27, 2007 9:22 AM, Jorge Schrauwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I could provide x64 binaries if there is interest in them. I usually push them out to my site within a week of the source release. I'm not 100% sure my method of creating them is the same as the ASF's but I can change my way if there is interest. Would you mind documenting your method? (Would the wiki be the right place for this?) Thanks! -- justin
Re: x64 binary build instructions was Re: 2.2.7
My method is documentated here: http://www.blackdot.be/?inc=apache/knowledge/tutorials/x64 It is on my wiki todo list but school is keeping me busy + the weekends are going to some stuff that is earning me money. My method has evolved slightly but not very much just minor tweaks to make things easier for me :) On 9/27/07, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 27, 2007 9:22 AM, Jorge Schrauwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I could provide x64 binaries if there is interest in them. I usually push them out to my site within a week of the source release. I'm not 100% sure my method of creating them is the same as the ASF's but I can change my way if there is interest. Would you mind documenting your method? (Would the wiki be the right place for this?) Thanks! -- justin -- ~Jorge
Re: 2.2.7
Erik Abele wrote: Sure, we all have to pay our bills but you're overlooking a difference: Nick just replied to an inquiry offering his (and others services); he doesn't advertise any revenue-generating site after every release etc. etc... ;-0 Nick's comment didn't even mention he does this exclusively, he pointed out that there are a number of devs or organizations who can provide such services, and was *probably* letting the user know that the scope of their troubles was not going to elicit them enough purely voulenteer help. Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries in a transparent and documented way *here* and we could even distribute them from apache.org/dist (plus mirrors) to help the win community even more! I want to be sure folks understand that the relabeling that Steffan and the AL team have already done went a long way to satisfying almost any of the project's possible concerns; the Feather is gone, disclaimers are posted. W.r.t. actually creating or distributing RC's, Colm's points went a long way to convince me they can be helpful --- that is if and only if the feedback gets back to where it might be useful to improving the s/w. Also note we only post binaries from committers; we can't/won't elicit or host them for add'l third parties. So for example, any committer is welcome to post updated sun .pkg's. But we wouldn't accept those from Sun. The origin of all of the files under http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/ is from an Apache httpd project committer, each of whom is bound to a CLA (to resolve any possible IP/trust issues.) Bill
Re: x64 binary build instructions was Re: 2.2.7
Just for reference, Jorge's been instrumental in providing feedback that has made it easier (not trivial, yet) to build for x64 on Windows. There's actually a build log sitting off in http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/ if anyone is interested in how noisy the 64 bit builds still are on win32, we seem to have made hundreds of steps forward, but dozens of steps back in the most actively maintained code. Some real headaches; sizeof() and strlen() give you a size_t, which != int on a P64 platform like Windows (pointers == 64 bit, int/long == 32 bit). Most unicies we test on are either ILP64 or LP64, where at least the sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*). So with Jorge's and help from a few others, 2.2.6 builds quite nicely at the command line. To make the transition to the GUI requires some other steps, and I'm hoping these are simpler with 2.2.7 if I have a whole weekend to work them up before we start to TR. Bill Jorge Schrauwen wrote: My method is documentated here: http://www.blackdot.be/?inc=apache/knowledge/tutorials/x64 It is on my wiki todo list but school is keeping me busy + the weekends are going to some stuff that is earning me money. My method has evolved slightly but not very much just minor tweaks to make things easier for me :) On 9/27/07, *Justin Erenkrantz* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 27, 2007 9:22 AM, Jorge Schrauwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I could provide x64 binaries if there is interest in them. I usually push them out to my site within a week of the source release. I'm not 100% sure my method of creating them is the same as the ASF's but I can change my way if there is interest. Would you mind documenting your method? (Would the wiki be the right place for this?) Thanks! -- justin
Re: 2.2.7
On 27.09.2007, at 17:04, François wrote: 2007/9/27, Erik Abele [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries in a transparent and documented way *here* and we could even distribute them from apache.org/dist (plus mirrors) to help the win community even more! Then, create a svn access to apache lounge people that patch httpd As Jim and Ruediger already pointed out, that's not how the ASF works. You'll have to earn the merit - it's a trust thing ;) and stop to flame/troll/point at these guys. Oh, there's no flaming involved AFAICS; don't confuse constructive criticism with unsubstantial insults... but you're right, we should probably simply ignore it, don't feed the trolls etc... Cheers, Erik
Re: 2.2.7
On 28.09.2007, at 01:28, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Erik Abele wrote: Sure, we all have to pay our bills but you're overlooking a difference: Nick just replied to an inquiry offering his (and others services); he doesn't advertise any revenue-generating site after every release etc. etc... ;-0 Nick's comment didn't even mention he does this exclusively, he pointed out that there are a number of devs or organizations who can provide such services, and was *probably* letting the user know that the scope of their troubles was not going to elicit them enough purely voulenteer help. Exactly! Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries in a transparent and documented way *here* and we could even distribute them from apache.org/dist (plus mirrors) to help the win community even more! I want to be sure folks understand that the relabeling that Steffan and the AL team have already done went a long way to satisfying almost any of the project's possible concerns; the Feather is gone, disclaimers are posted. W.r.t. actually creating or distributing RC's, Colm's points went a long way to convince me they can be helpful --- that is if and only if the feedback gets back to where it might be useful to improving the s/w. Absolutely. Also note we only post binaries from committers; we can't/won't elicit or host them for add'l third parties. So for example, any committer is welcome to post updated sun .pkg's. But we wouldn't accept those from Sun. The origin of all of the files under http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/ is from an Apache httpd project committer, each of whom is bound to a CLA (to resolve any possible IP/trust issues.) Yep, maybe my post was misleading; with some effort I actually meant becoming a committer... :) Cheers, Erik
Re: Solution to apr stdio/msvc crt/service handles and logging
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/apr-1.x-win32-nohandle.patch FYI - that one does not apply cleanly to apr-1.2 (it's trunk) if you want the easily applied flavor, that would be; http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/apr-1.2-win32-nohandle.patch The httpd patch applies with little pain. The patched version built fine, and with the svn mod_perl2 sources, and perl-5.8.8 (ActivePerl 822), all the mp2 tests passed using VC++ 6. Great work! I'm currently rebuilding everything with VC 8 (the free version), and will report on that later. -- best regards, Randy
Re: Solution to apr stdio/msvc crt/service handles and logging
Randy Kobes wrote: I'm currently rebuilding everything with VC 8 (the free version), and will report on that later. Yea - I discovered it's quite impossible to get msvcrt-linked activestate to cooperate with openssl compiled against msvcr80, and probably not against httpd+mod_perl against msvcr80. Even errors silently ignored before cause segfaults now when activestate tries to touch pseudo-posix files and visa versa because msvcr80 has all of the additional parameter checking. Really, building exclusively against either msvcr80 or msvcrt is the only way to go, and that includes all the bits. Bill
Re: svn commit: r580220 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/modules/experimental/mod_case_filter.c
Sorry to jump over STATUS on this experimental change; I was seeing growing loop as I attempted to upcase a proxied back end response of LICENSE.txt, which repeated the opening part of the document over and over as it grew to the full response (from 39kb up to some 105kb). Does anyone see an issue with this backport (and does anyone want to put in the effort to do it well ;-) Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: wrowe Date: Thu Sep 27 22:01:56 2007 New Revision: 580220 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=580220view=rev Log: Change to Experimental module to avoid an ever-expanding brigade, absorb the buckets we've consumed. Better ways to do this lurk here. Backport: r580206 Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/modules/experimental/mod_case_filter.c Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/modules/experimental/mod_case_filter.c URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/modules/experimental/mod_case_filter.c?rev=580220r1=580219r2=580220view=diff == --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/modules/experimental/mod_case_filter.c (original) +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/modules/experimental/mod_case_filter.c Thu Sep 27 22:01:56 2007 @@ -89,7 +89,16 @@ APR_BRIGADE_INSERT_TAIL(pbbOut,pbktOut); } -/* XXX: is there any advantage to passing a brigade for each bucket? */ +/* Q: is there any advantage to passing a brigade for each bucket? + * A: obviously, it can cut down server resource consumption, if this + * experimental module was fed a file of 4MB, it would be using 8MB for + * the 'read' buckets and the 'write' buckets. + * + * Note it is more efficient to consume (destroy) each bucket as it's + * processed above than to do a single cleanup down here. In any case, + * don't let our caller pass the same buckets to us, twice; + */ +ap_briade_cleanup(pbbIn); return ap_pass_brigade(f-next,pbbOut); }
