- From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 21:47
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
tarballs for review
On Sep 6, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Steffen wrote:
I'm assuming the we is you, right?
It is not just
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Any more info how you got it to work with apxs?
This works for me:
C:\ C:\Apache2\bin\apxs -llibhttpd -D APACHE2 -p
-IC:\Temp\mod_fcgid.2.1 -o mod_fcgid.so -c mod_fcgid.c
fcgid_bridge.c fcgid_conf.c fcgid_pm_main.c
arch\win32\fcgid_pm_win.c
Yeah I figured it out a bit later and it indeed seems broke. Not sure whats
wrong though I posted a debug log + user dump yesterday.
On 9/8/07, Randy Kobes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Any more info how you got it to work with apxs?
This works for me:
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Yeah I figured it out a bit later and it indeed seems broke. Not sure
whats wrong though I posted a debug log + user dump yesterday.
The debug log was unfortunately not very interesting, since it wasn't doing
anything out of the ordinary at the time you interrupted the
Any more info how you got it to work with apxs?
~ Jorge
On 9/7/07, Issac Goldstand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
win32/vc8 +1 (not that it makes much of a difference at this point :))
I've gotten mod_fcgid built against it (though apxs-win32-0.6 is still
not doing -llibhttpd -llibapr-1 and
Hmmz still getting link errors :(
---
S:\source\x86\modules\mod_fcgid.2.1apxs -llibhttpd -llibapr-1
-llibaprutil-1 -c -i -a mod_fcgid.c
cl /nologo /MD /W3 /O2 /D WIN32 /D _WINDOWS /D NDEBUG-IS:\httpd-
2.2\include /c /Fomod_fcgid.
lo mod_fcgid.c
mod_fcgid.c
link kernel32.lib /nologo
The site is updated and mirrors are on the final stages of
syncing up.
The announcement will be going out in a coupla hours.
Thanks to all!
win32/vc8 +1 (not that it makes much of a difference at this point :))
I've gotten mod_fcgid built against it (though apxs-win32-0.6 is still
not doing -llibhttpd -llibapr-1 and -llibaprutil-1 by default) I'm not
quite sure what the original issue is there, and I've no clue how to
actually use
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Hmmz still getting link errors :(
---
S:\source\x86\modules\mod_fcgid.2.1apxs -llibhttpd -llibapr-1
-llibaprutil-1 -c -i -a mod_fcgid.c
cl /nologo /MD /W3 /O2 /D WIN32 /D _WINDOWS /D NDEBUG-IS:\httpd-
2.2\include /c /Fomod_fcgid.
lo mod_fcgid.c
mod_fcgid.c
Well since after messing about with mod_fcgid a bit I finally got it to
compile.
I tried printenv.pl with this configuration:
LoadModule fcgid_module modules/mod_fcgid.so
Location /fcgid
SetHandler fcgid-script
Options ExecCGI
allow from all
/Location
as by the doc here:
Ok basic example as stated here:
http://fastcgi.coremail.cn/configuration.htm#regular%20fastcgi
makes the server spit out these again:
[Fri Sep 07 17:49:51 2007] [error] [client 192.168.1.4] Premature end of
script headers: printenv.pl
if I place the same script outside of the fcgid folder it
I got it to compile via the included projected manually adding aditional
depedancys on libhttp, libapr-1 and libaprutil-1 did the trick.
Now I need to find out how it is suposed to work adn see if it works or not
On 9/7/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Didn't even notice... I usually take the tar.gz source and add in
apr-iconv myself then run lineends.pl that is included in
srclib/apr/build/, I also run cvtdsp.pl -2005 on there before I start.
I didn't even seen a - win32-src.zip at that time.
Bingo - that's how I
Didn't even notice... I usually take the tar.gz source and add in apr-iconv
myself then run lineends.pl that is included in srclib/apr/build/, I also
run cvtdsp.pl -2005 on there before I start.
I didn't even seen a -win32-src.zip at that time.
On 9/7/07, Issac Goldstand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll try it as soon as it shows up.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Issac Goldstand wrote:
Uh. Maybe I've lost it, but where's the source for apr-iconv in
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/httpd-2.2.6-win32-src.zip?
All I get is an .rc file and a couple of .deps and .maks
I just pulled an OH
And Jorge, yeah. I was wondering if I was just getting a really really
oddly maimed ZIP :-)
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Issac Goldstand wrote:
Uh. Maybe I've lost it, but where's the source for apr-iconv in
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/httpd-2.2.6-win32-src.zip?
All I get is an .rc
Issac Goldstand wrote:
Uh. Maybe I've lost it, but where's the source for apr-iconv in
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/httpd-2.2.6-win32-src.zip?
All I get is an .rc file and a couple of .deps and .maks
I just pulled an OH SHIT moment myself building on x86_64 windows...
... there are
Uh. Maybe I've lost it, but where's the source for apr-iconv in
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/httpd-2.2.6-win32-src.zip?
All I get is an .rc file and a couple of .deps and .maks
Issac
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Ok basic example as stated here:
http://fastcgi.coremail.cn/configuration.htm#regular%20fastcgi
makes the server spit out these again:
[Fri Sep 07 17:49:51 2007] [error] [client 192.168.1.4
http://192.168.1.4] Premature end of script headers: printenv.pl
On 9/7/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Ok basic example as stated here:
http://fastcgi.coremail.cn/configuration.htm#regular%20fastcgi
makes the server spit out these again:
[Fri Sep 07 17:49:51 2007] [error] [client 192.168.1.4
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
[+1]apache_1.3.39
[+1]httpd-2.0.61
[+1]httpd-2.2.6
Thanks!!
No, thank YOU :)
Small chaos today as some reports contradicted my earlier testing, but
I see no regressions, with the exception
On 09/05/2007 04:29 PM, Plüm wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. September 2007 23:29
An: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release
candidate tarballs for review
Available for your
On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close
Sept 7, unless otherwise
@httpd.apache.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 15:48
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
tarballs for review
On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release
.
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 15:48
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
tarballs for review
On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Jim
On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Steffen wrote:
k
I the meantime we have to advise the users not to use 2.2.6
because is not compatible with some mods (not just mod_fcgid). We
shall advise to stay on 2.2.4 or 2.2.5 RC.
What other mods is it not compatible with? So far, I haven't
heard
is not working for me, either with Perl or with my own FCGI
test program.
Steffen
- Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 15:48
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release
On Sep 6, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
So far, I see nothing yet preventing us from releasing
this tomorrow... assuming that stays the same, I will
move the files over to the main dist location to allow
mirrors to start snagging and allow us a real release
and announcement tomorrow.
: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 17:52
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
tarballs for review
On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Steffen wrote:
k
I the meantime we have to advise the users not to use
September, 2007 17:53
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
tarballs for review
Did you rebuild mod_fcgid?
On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Steffen wrote:
An other report:
mod_cgi is working OK for me with the Apache 2.2.6 RC, which I built
with VC6 - not VC8
: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
tarballs for review
On Sep 6, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Steffen wrote:
I'm assuming the we is you, right?
It is not just me. We are a team and of course the users. Just as an
example
the other post from me here which is a report from
@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 21:47
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release
candidate tarballs for review
On Sep 6, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Steffen wrote:
I'm assuming the we is you, right?
It is not just me. We are a team and of course the users. Just
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 09:48:28AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote
On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:33 PM, The Doctor wrote:
Any chance I can test for bugs on BSD/OS ?
The last time it was major.
Well, we are pushing out to mirrors, but that shouldn't
stop people from testing... If something shows up
we have options, the best option being determined by
the kind of
.
Can we stop now this discussion ?
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 22:20
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
tarballs for review
Ummm hrmm:
A hurry
On 9/6/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ASF hates Windows users
comments??
I usually prefure not to poke my nose into other peoples discussions but...
my experience with the ASF is that they threat windows users equally than
linux/unix/whatever users.
The problem is windows users
I tried to compiled mod_fcgid myself to see if I can replicate the problem.
I can't even compiled it against 2.2.6.
I get a lot of link errors agains APR.
--- complete buildlog availble on request but nothing odd until this ---
1fcgid_spawn_ctl.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol
Steffen wrote:
I the meantime we have to advise the users not to use 2.2.6 because is
not compatible with some mods (not just mod_fcgid). We shall advise to
stay on 2.2.4 or 2.2.5 RC.
If you would like to clear up FUD (some mods) with explicit mods that
would be productive. It would also
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Windows users (my self included) usually go like:
Dudez XYZ is broken, Fix it, Fix it, Fix it. When the dev's look at it
and ask for more information they usually don't get it. So it isn't
fixed at all or as fast as a linux bug would be.
You know, you hit the nail on
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
I tried to compiled mod_fcgid myself to see if I can replicate the problem.
I can't even compiled it against 2.2.6.
I get a lot of link errors agains APR.
Silly question, did you add libapr-1.lib, libaprutil-1.lib libhttpd.lib to
the link command?
(Worse, if you did add
.
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 23:22
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
tarballs for review
Steffen wrote:
I the meantime we have to advise
] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
tarballs for review
Steffen wrote:
I the meantime we have to advise the users not to use 2.2.6 because is
not compatible with some mods (not just mod_fcgid). We shall advise to
stay on 2.2.4 or 2.2.5 RC.
If you would like to clear up
On 9/6/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
I tried to compiled mod_fcgid myself to see if I can replicate the
problem.
I can't even compiled it against 2.2.6.
I get a lot of link errors agains APR.
Silly question, did you add libapr-1.lib,
Steffen wrote:
Oh, btw: mod_perl (also build with VC8) is not working with 2.2.6, with
2.2.5 RC no single issue.
Perl, mod_perl, httpd and apr all built with VC8? Or is this AS perl or
some other?
Bill
Steffen wrote:
The later post was a report of an other tester, sorry no answer I have.
Yes, I dicusssed it with the maintainer of mod_fcgid today. He is
puzzling now an as I told before, we have to wait.
Before he puzzles too long, you might want to ensure you have a full
rebuild of
+1 httpd-2.2.6, OS X 10.4.10, gcc 4.0.1
Roy
tisdagen den 4 september 2007 skrev Jim Jagielski:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close
Sept 7, unless otherwise
+1:1.3.39
Builds with nothing except for signedness warnings on Win32 (mostly
related to goofy FD_SET declarations by MS). So no adverse symptoms.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sep 4, 2007, at 8:15 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Hmmm... yeah, bummer. If that's it though,
On 9/5/07, Jorge Schrauwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/4/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote
On 9/4/2007 at 3:29 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Jagielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote will run through
Jim Jagielski wrote on Tuesday, September 04, 2007:
This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close
Sept 7, unless otherwise noted...
+/-1 (x == +1)
[ ]apache_1.3.39
[ ]httpd-2.0.61
[ ]httpd-2.2.6
+1 for Apache_1.3.39 on TPF
(TPF doesn't support Apache 2 yet
Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 04 September, 2007 23:29
Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
tarballs for review
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server
, 2007 23:29
Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
tarballs for review
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote will run through Sept 6
used in the community with php.
For me a big -1
Steffen
- Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 04 September, 2007 23:29
Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
, 2007 23:29
Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs
for review
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote will run through Sept 6
] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
tarballs for review
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close
Sept 7
September, 2007 23:29
Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs
for review
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote will run
Also mod_perl is not working here with Win32. No indication in the logs.
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 04 September, 2007 23:29
Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release
Steffen wrote:
little things:
mod_bucketeer.so is not build out of the box with Win32 gui-build.
Not necessary (except for testers). Trivial for the developer to
create (along with many similar testing modules - instead of building
the BuildBin target, use BuildAll target.
zlib1.dll is now
Steffen wrote:
I get this kind off error too when stopping.
Never seen before:
Failed to dup STDIN: Bad file descriptor.
Error in my_thread_global_end(): 251 threads didn't exit
I expect you are talking about mod_fcgid again?
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
I don't have any cgi scripts so I tried to get the printenv test-cgi
file to work.
I get 500 and error_log has this.
[Wed Sep 05 20:44:36 2007] [error] [client 87.66.74.14
http://87.66.74.14] Premature end of script headers: printenv.pl
[Wed Sep 05 20:50:24 2007]
:40
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
tarballs for review
Steffen wrote:
little things:
mod_bucketeer.so is not build out of the box with Win32 gui-build.
Not necessary (except for testers). Trivial for the developer to
create (along with many similar
Nope, was not running mod_fcgid.
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, 05 September, 2007 21:44
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
tarballs for review
Steffen wrote
Steffen wrote:
I have no zlib1.dll on my box and mod_deflate works fine. It's
included/static in mod-deflate.so.
Next time I shall ship it too, does not harm.
FYI - I haven't dug into the theory, but I'd presumed a possible race
and certainly suboptimal behavior if you go with OpenSSL's
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
I don't have any cgi scripts so I tried to get the printenv test-cgi
file to work.
I get 500 and error_log has this.
[Wed Sep 05 20:44:36 2007] [error] [client 87.66.74.14
http://87.66.74.14] Premature end of script headers: printenv.pl
On 9/5/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
I don't have any cgi scripts so I tried to get the printenv test-cgi
file to work.
I get 500 and error_log has this.
[Wed Sep 05 20:44:36 2007] [error] [client 87.66.74.14
@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 04 September, 2007 23:29
Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs
for review
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected
Steffen wrote:
With 2.2.6 third party mod mod_fcgid (Fast cgi) is broken.
With 2.2.5 RC it was all fine.
mod_fcgid is widely used in the community with php.
I guess my puzzlement is that the fastcgi model I understand;
fork...
instantiate child
spining cgid listener - on
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
What exectly is not working in mod_perl? my limited mod_perl config is
working fine.
On 9/5/07, *Steffen* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also mod_perl is not working here with Win32. No indication in the
logs.
FWIW;
I believe I know
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close
Sept 7, unless otherwise noted...
+/-1 (x == +1)
[ ]apache_1.3.39
[
On 9/4/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close
Sept 7, unless otherwise
On 04.09.2007, at 23:29, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close
Sept 7, unless otherwise noted...
Erik Abele wrote:
On 04.09.2007, at 23:29, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
[ ]apache_1.3.39
-0.1
The tarball apache_1.3.39.tar.gz explodes into apache-1.3/, which
isn't
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Hmmm... yeah, bummer. If that's it though, I'm +1 on keeping
as is... we can document this. Or, we could *gasp* just reroll :/
Or we can repack the same files. This is a packaging artifact, not
an artifact of source control.
Bill
On Sep 4, 2007, at 8:15 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Hmmm... yeah, bummer. If that's it though, I'm +1 on keeping
as is... we can document this. Or, we could *gasp* just reroll :/
Or we can repack the same files. This is a packaging artifact, not
an artifact of
76 matches
Mail list logo
