On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 08:49:52AM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
So what is failing to build? 2.1.3? Or trunk? Only on
win32, or on other platforms as well? Can you reproduce?
Note that 2.1.3 fails to build on Win32 because APR 1.1.0 doesn't build.
This Win32 failure is *not* an httpd
At 01:49 AM 3/8/2005, Sander Striker wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Onward to 14 ++1 to Sander's efforts to roll out 2.1.4 ... let's get it right
(at least, let's have something that builds,
irrespective of it has the features folks want.)
So what is failing to build? 2.1.3? Or trunk?
At 10:22 AM 3/8/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Note that 2.1.3 fails to build on Win32 because APR 1.1.0 doesn't build.
This Win32 failure is *not* an httpd problem. Mladen reported that using
APR trunk worked fine with 2.1.3.
Perhaps you aught to respond to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] post;
At 07:22 AM 3/6/2005, Sander Striker wrote:
I assume we are in agreement that the current AAA discussion shouldn't
hold up moving to 2.2 either.
Absolutely it does. Either 2.1-dev has made implementing this
worse (my essentially workable proposal for 2.0 would no longer
work at all, with no
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 12:19:45AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 07:22 AM 3/6/2005, Sander Striker wrote:
I assume we are in agreement that the current AAA discussion shouldn't
hold up moving to 2.2 either.
Absolutely it does. Either 2.1-dev has made implementing this
worse (my
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 07:22 AM 3/6/2005, Sander Striker wrote:
I assume we are in agreement that the current AAA discussion shouldn't
hold up moving to 2.2 either.
Absolutely it does. Either 2.1-dev has made implementing this
worse (my essentially workable proposal for 2.0 would no
On Mar 7, 2005, at 1:19 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 07:22 AM 3/6/2005, Sander Striker wrote:
I assume we are in agreement that the current AAA discussion shouldn't
hold up moving to 2.2 either.
Absolutely it does. Either 2.1-dev has made implementing this
worse (my essentially workable
Paul Querna wrote:
I think it should be hacked into mod_authnz_ldap, and if it works, then
work can be done to generalize it to all the authnz modules. Right now
we really don't know what is required to get it done. It is all just
mailing list talk and theory.
The trouble is that any work
At 10:21 AM 3/7/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
I disagree. The current authentication in 2.1 is far far better than what 2.0
has. I have been using it in production variations for over 2 years now.
Just the ability to use any authentication backend with Digest is a huge
improvement.
++1 - and
--On Monday, March 7, 2005 5:37 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
++1 - and I've always agreed. My only question is does the new API
make it impossible to do simple things.
...
If the new API makes things more difficult, it's a regression.
This AAA provider discussion just
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I vote +1 for a beta.
Ditto.
Sander
jakarta-tomcat-dev reports Gump can't build, but since they
haven't given us details so not much we can do about it.
Fails to even build on Win32.
-1 for beta on 2.1.3.
Onward to 14 ++1 to Sander's efforts to roll out 2.1.4 ...
let's get it right (at least, let's have something that builds,
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
jakarta-tomcat-dev reports Gump can't build, but since they
haven't given us details so not much we can do about it.
Fails to even build on Win32.
-1 for beta on 2.1.3.
I think we passed the 2.1.3 station already.
Onward to 14 ++1 to Sander's efforts to roll out 2.1.4
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
2.1.3 tarballs at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'd like to get enough votes for 2.1.3 to be a beta and commence the
feature freeze towards a 2.2.0 GA.
As we discussed at ApacheCon in November (over three months ago), this
would mean we create a 2.2.x branch from
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:22:12PM +, Nick Kew wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
As to Nick's comment, I certainly agree with your position, there
is not enough adoption of APR to -not- roll in the apr/apr-util
Isn't that chicken-and-egg? APR is seen as part of Apache(httpd)
by
Joe Orton said:
Hey! All you folks out there who were having build issues - don't worry,
help is at hand. With *this* release you just have to get *three*
tarballs configured and built correctly together instead of one! It's
*so* much better for you, can't you tell? /sarcasm
Three? You
On Feb 24, 2005, at 1:52 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:37 PM -0600 William A. Rowe,
Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uhm, no. By that definition, all the pollution spewed from typical
Linux libraries would be considered 'public api.' Other platforms
are using
+1 on NetWare.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:52:23 AM
--On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:37 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uhm, no. By that definition, all the pollution spewed from typical
Linux libraries would be considered 'public api.'
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 16:57 +0100, Matthieu Estrade wrote:
I think it's the best way.
Maybe we could also provide two packages, httpd-with-apr and another one
without apr
How about the main release (i.e. the one advertised on the download
page) having a bundled APR in it (so that folks
Nick Kew wrote:
If we're serious about APR having a life of its own, let's put our
money where our mouth is and unbundle them. As soon as that happens,
APR will get packaged in all the distros. It works for me:
httpd-2.1 builds and runs with APR-1.x. If it fails on some
platforms, that's simply
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
2.1.3 tarballs at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'd like to get enough votes for 2.1.3 to be a beta and commence the
feature freeze towards a 2.2.0 GA.
Well, the tarballs are unbuildable on WIN32.
The problem is with apr and apr-util provided with the tarball,
and
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
By this point, I think that if a super-cool feature hasn't made it in
yet, it's time to admit that the feature missed the boat and it needs to
wait until 2.4.
Never mind about super-cool features making it in. What about the
reverse? Why is APR still bundled rather
--On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:19 AM + Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
By this point, I think that if a super-cool feature hasn't made it in
yet, it's time to admit that the feature missed the boat and it needs to
wait until 2.4.
Never mind about super-cool
--On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:09 AM +0100 Mladen Turk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the tarballs are unbuildable on WIN32.
The problem is with apr and apr-util provided with the tarball,
and broken build/win32ver.awk that creates invalid .rc files.
If I use apr and apr-utils from HEAD,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 11:04:54PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
2.1.3 tarballs at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Thanks, as ever!
I'd like to get enough votes for 2.1.3 to be a beta and commence the
feature freeze towards a 2.2.0 GA.
Tested across a variety of Linuxes here, +1 for
Justin Erenkrantz said:
I disagree because forcing users to separately download APR is a bad thing
as
it is a 'core' dependency - you can't build httpd without it. I don't
think
it's reasonable to assume that anyone has APR installed. Actually, if
they
do, it's likely to be APR 0.x due
--On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 5:55 PM +0200 Graham Leggett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As soon as you install httpd + APR in a system location, you no longer can
install subversion + APR in a system location. This was the basis of
getting vendor packaging files (like RPM and PKG) into APR and
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 5:55 PM +0200 Graham Leggett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As soon as you install httpd + APR in a system location, you no
longer can
install subversion + APR in a system location. This was the basis of
getting vendor packaging files (like
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:57:20 +0100, Matthieu Estrade [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I think it's the best way.
Maybe we could also provide two packages, httpd-with-apr and another one
without apr
No, they should be separate, and having two different packages is just
a
Paul A. Houle wrote:
Also the stability of APR is going to matter. For a long time you
had to run Subversion on APR out of CVS and I'd often update svn and
then find that I had to update APR because they'd changed it so it
depends on the latest APR.
If APR is going to be reasonably
Paul A. Houle said:
The one thing I'd worry about is maintainance. Suppose there's a
security flaw in APR... Well, Apache is in the front of your mind, but
APR isn't, so it might be easy to overlook the advisory.
A sysadmin would be looking out for more than just httpd advisories -
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I would be happy to switch the find_ap{ru}.m4 to try to look for an
installed APR/APR-util first if --with-apr{-util} is not specified. I'm
shocked it doesn't do that already. Would that alleviate your
concerns? -- justin
+1.
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
At 09:26 AM 2/23/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:09 AM +0100 Mladen Turk [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the tarballs are unbuildable on WIN32.
The problem is with apr and apr-util provided with the tarball,
and broken build/win32ver.awk that creates invalid
--On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 12:44 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1 veto - there is no reason for us -not- to adopt apr 1.2.0.
I'm confused why we would be so pedantic as to not adopt a
current release? APR signatures were broken on all 1.0/1.1
APR 1.2.0 isn't
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 09:26 AM 2/23/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:09 AM +0100 Mladen Turk [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the tarballs are unbuildable on WIN32.
The problem is with apr and apr-util provided with the tarball,
and broken
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
As to Nick's comment, I certainly agree with your position, there
is not enough adoption of APR to -not- roll in the apr/apr-util
Isn't that chicken-and-egg? APR is seen as part of Apache(httpd)
by everyone outside a small core, most of whom probably subscribe
to
--On Thursday, February 24, 2005 1:03 AM +0100 Guenter Knauf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
minor patch for correct copyright in ./build/NWGNUtail.inc:
Heh. Applied. Thanks! -- justin
Hi,
2.1.3 tarballs at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
builds fine so far for NW, but not further tested yet...
minor patch for correct copyright in ./build/NWGNUtail.inc:
--- NWGNUtail.inc.orig Thu Nov 25 01:01:34 2004
+++ NWGNUtail.inc Thu Feb 24 00:50:08 2005
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
On Feb 23, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
That's been 'broken' forever and it's only because Subversion 1.2
wants to use private mod_dav functions.
They're not private mod_dav functions. They're supposedly a public
API, meant to be used by mod_dav provider back-ends. They just
At 07:34 PM 2/23/2005, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
On Feb 23, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
That's been 'broken' forever and it's only because Subversion 1.2 wants to
use private mod_dav functions.
They're not private mod_dav functions. They're supposedly a public API, meant
to
--On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:37 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uhm, no. By that definition, all the pollution spewed from typical
Linux libraries would be considered 'public api.' Other platforms
are using the construct to extract public symbol lists now, IIUC.
2.1.3 tarballs at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'd like to get enough votes for 2.1.3 to be a beta and commence the feature
freeze towards a 2.2.0 GA.
As we discussed at ApacheCon in November (over three months ago), this would
mean we create a 2.2.x branch from the 2.1.3 tag and bump
--On Tuesday, February 22, 2005 11:04 PM -0800 Justin Erenkrantz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.1.3 tarballs at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'd like to get enough votes for 2.1.3 to be a beta and commence the feature
freeze towards a 2.2.0 GA.
For the record, +1.
2.1.3 passes httpd-test on
43 matches
Mail list logo
