Hello.
I just wonder if someone could tell me if and official 2.2.5/2.2.6 will be
released before September the 10th? That's the version freeze date for
Mandriva Linux 2008.
Thanks in advance.
--
Regards // Oden Eriksson
No guarantees, but the expectation is Yes, 2.2.6 will be
released way before then. We're justing waiting for some
APR cleanups before I tag/roll 2.2.6
On Aug 21, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Oden Eriksson wrote:
Hello.
I just wonder if someone could tell me if and official 2.2.5/2.2.6
just wonder if someone could tell me if and official 2.2.5/2.2.6
will be
released before September the 10th? That's the version freeze date for
Mandriva Linux 2008.
Thanks in advance.
--
Regards // Oden Eriksson
--
Regards // Oden Eriksson
)
[ ]apache_1.3.28
[ ]httpd-2.0.60
[ ]httpd-2.2.5
2.2.5 works for me on latest Mandriva Cooker, and backported to Mandriva Linux
Corporate Server 4, 2007.1 with x86_32 and x86_64. Even the perl-framework
(latest) tests passes this time :)
But for some reason and only under our
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Oden Eriksson
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. August 2007 13:56
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release
candidate tarballs for review
But for some reason and only under our build system HTTP::DAV
is not found
torsdagen den 16 augusti 2007 skrev Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Oden Eriksson
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. August 2007 13:56
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release
candidate tarballs for review
== +1)
[ ]apache_1.3.28
[ ]httpd-2.0.60
[ ]httpd-2.2.5
Thanks!!
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://
www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you
Hi,
That is what I am finding with thi set of prereleases.
One exaple http://www.nk.ca/cgi-bin/syswatch.pl
And another
http://ns2.nk.ca/cgi-bin/syswatch.pl
it seems to me that you have not setup syswatch properly since the red and
green pictures for the bars are missing; this does
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 03:02:31AM +0200, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
That is what I am finding with thi set of prereleases.
One exaple http://www.nk.ca/cgi-bin/syswatch.pl
And another
http://ns2.nk.ca/cgi-bin/syswatch.pl
it seems to me that you have not setup syswatch properly
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 03:02:31AM +0200, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
That is what I am finding with thi set of prereleases.
One exaple http://www.nk.ca/cgi-bin/syswatch.pl
And another
http://ns2.nk.ca/cgi-bin/syswatch.pl
it seems to me that you have not setup syswatch properly
Hi Doc,
I may need some pointers on this.
well, that's simple:
IIRC the syswatch script uses a very small picture to create the read and green
bars; I dont see these bars, but instead my browser displays a place holder,
and that suggests me that you have not setup the path or the rights for
Hi,
Further I do find in my logs:
[Tue Aug 14 18:25:26 2007] [error] [client
1800:0:a8b4:d608:84a5:5748:6875:408]
client denied by server configuration: /var/www/docs/vispan/queue.gif,
referer:
http://www.nk.ca/vispan/
[Tue Aug 14 18:25:26 2007] [error] [client
The tarballs and related files for 2.0.60 have been
removed from testing...
Depending on the speed in which APR 0.9.15, we may
go ahead with a fully combined 1.3/2.0/2.2 release
(as originally planned) or release 1.3/2.2 earlier
than 2.0...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:02:53 -0400
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Depending on the speed in which APR 0.9.15, we may
go ahead with a fully combined 1.3/2.0/2.2 release
(as originally planned)
Rushed schedules lead to more bugs ...
or release 1.3/2.2 earlier
than 2.0...
Hello,
view from a small commercial vendor:
[ ]httpd-2.2.5
dropped into custom buildsystem for proprietary solution; passed
integrety check, compilation, regression tests, application testing plus
manual inspection without so much as a burp.
Best regards,
Andreas
--
flatline
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Nick Kew
Gesendet: Montag, 13. August 2007 14:54
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release
candidate tarballs for review
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:02:53 -0400
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On Aug 13, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Nick Kew
Gesendet: Montag, 13. August 2007 14:54
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release
candidate tarballs for review
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:02:53
-unknown-freebsd6.1 due to same regressions
Not tested on x86_64-unknown-netbsd3.1
[ ]httpd-2.2.5
+1 on powerpc-apple-darwin8.10.0
+1 on amd64-unknown-freebsd6.1
-1 on x86_64-unknown-netbsd3.1 (does not build, see below)
Details:
Darwin clarus.apache.org. 8.10.0 Darwin Kernel Version
On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
On Aug 10, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
Good PGP signatures on all. Good MD5 hashes on all, although you
seem to have
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Also, all the way through 1.3.37 the 1.3 drop has been available in
.tar.gz and .tar.Z compressed format, never in .tar.bz2.
By design and on purpose, I dropped .Z in favor of bz2...
I wanted similar distros available.
When this came up last time, we decided to retain
On Aug 13, 2007, at 1:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Also, all the way through 1.3.37 the 1.3 drop has been available in
.tar.gz and .tar.Z compressed format, never in .tar.bz2.
By design and on purpose, I dropped .Z in favor of bz2...
I wanted similar distros
On Aug 10, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[ ]httpd-2.2.5
2.2.5 Prefork is now running on issues.apache.org, running Ubuntu
Dapper, and holding up nicely:
http://issues.apache.org/server-status
Not that we expected otherwise. (:
S.
--
Sander Temme
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP
)
[ ]apache_1.3.28
[ ]httpd-2.0.60
[ ]httpd-2.2.5
-1 from me on 2.0.60 as the test framework revealed regressions compared to
2.0.59:
2.0.59:
Failed TestStat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
)
[ ]apache_1.3.28
[ ]httpd-2.0.60
[ ]httpd-2.2.5
+1 from me on httpd-2.2.5:
1. Signature and md5sum ok for httpd-2.2.5.tar.gz / httpd-2.2.5.tar.bz2
2. Compiles fine and starts on Solaris 8:
gcc (GCC) 3.3.2
Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software
On Aug 12, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
-1 from me on 2.0.60 as the test framework revealed regressions
compared to 2.0.59:
What platform? Trying to recreate this...
These regression are caused by an apr problem. 2.0.59 is shipped
with apr 0.9.12 whereas
2.0.60 is
On 08/12/2007 05:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 12, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
-1 from me on 2.0.60 as the test framework revealed regressions
compared to 2.0.59:
What platform? Trying to recreate this...
Sorry for omitting:
SuSE Linux 32 Bit:
gcc (GCC) 4.1.2
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/12/2007 05:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Also, would this require a new tag for 2.0.60? It's not
an Apache problem, rather with how the 2.0.60 tarball was
done, but whenever problems have existed in the tarballs
before, we have retagged and rerolled, which I
On 11 Aug 2007, at 00:49, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[ ]httpd-2.0.60
Not tested (moot in view of Ruediger's -1)
[ ]httpd-2.2.5
+1 Linux and MacOS. Fails two Perl tests on Mac (security/CVE-2004-0959
and apache/pr18757), but that appears to be down to my perl
installation
All fine for httpd-2.2.5 (VS2005 through the command line), except for this:
T:\httpd-2.2.5\httpd-2.2.5\srclib\apr\include\apr_want.h(52): Could not find
the
file strings.h.
T:\httpd-2.2.5\httpd-2.2.5\srclib\apr\include\apr_want.h(85): Could not find
the
file sys/uio.h.
T:\httpd-2.2.5\httpd
+1 for the 2.2.5 tarball: good signature, test suite passes on
Linux/x86_64, looks sane from manual inspection.
joe
+1 for 2.2.5 on Win32 with VC2005 SP1
Build without any issue and running now 2.2.5 at www.apache.lounge.com .
For testing you can download 2.2.5 at www.apache.lounge.com/download
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL
Sorry a typo in the links, so again:
+1 for 2.2.5 on Win32 with VC2005 SP1
Build without any issue and running now 2.2.5 at www.apachelounge.com .
For testing you can download 2.2.5 at www.apachelounge.com/download
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED
Gustavo Lopes wrote:
All fine for httpd-2.2.5 (VS2005 through the command line), except for
this:
T:\httpd-2.2.5\httpd-2.2.5\srclib\apr\include\apr_want.h(52): Could not
find the
file strings.h.
T:\httpd-2.2.5\httpd-2.2.5\srclib\apr\include\apr_want.h(85): Could not
find the
file sys/uio.h
-2.2.5
Thanks!!
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://
www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[ ]apache_1.3.28
Obviously, that should have been
[ ] apache_1.3.38
:)
Hi Jim,
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
I found a very small build problem which is caused by my own fault (I tested
wrong before);
what happens is that we changed recently the distribution directory to
/apache22, but
On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
On Jul 19, 2007, at 3:22 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Now that the security related patches have been backported to
2.2.x is there
anything that prevents us from releasing 2.2.5?
Sander Temme volunteered to be the RM back in May
Now that the security related patches have been backported to 2.2.x is there
anything that prevents us from releasing 2.2.5?
Sander Temme volunteered to be the RM back in May. Is this still valid?
Regards
Rüdiger
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Now that the security related patches have been backported to 2.2.x is there
anything that prevents us from releasing 2.2.5?
for me, not really I just want to finish the mod_proxy stuff related to
PR37770 to get it in this release.
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
Sander Temme
On Jul 19, 2007, at 3:22 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Now that the security related patches have been backported to 2.2.x
is there
anything that prevents us from releasing 2.2.5?
Sander Temme volunteered to be the RM back in May. Is this still
valid?
Absolutely. I was going to propose
Issue 42665 fixes a long existing bug in httpd. A patch is included with
the issue. I would like to nominate it for inclusion in v2.2.5
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42665
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Allen Pulsifer
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2007 17:11
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: RE: 2.2.5?
Issue 42665 fixes a long existing bug in httpd. A patch is
included with
the issue. I would like to nominate it for inclusion in v2.2.5
Hey Allen,
On Jul 19, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Issue 42665 fixes a long existing bug in httpd. A patch is
included with
the issue. I would like to nominate it for inclusion in v2.2.5
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42665
Thank you for contributing! As
Thank you for contributing! As Rüdiger already points out, we want
patches to go into the development trunk
Whenever someone is ready to test this patch and/or commit it to the
development trunk, please feel free.
I think it should be obvious that if patches are going to sit around
untested
Thanks for the pointer but this patch is not even contained
in trunk yet and as far as I remember the patch is only an
optimization (compared to a bug that makes a functionality
unusable). So I would guess that it misses the boat for 2.2.5.
The patch is not an optimization--it fixes a bug
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Allen Pulsifer
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2007 17:54
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: RE: 2.2.5?
Thank you for contributing! As Rüdiger already points out,
we want
patches to go into the development trunk
Whenever someone is ready
Hi!
I might be jumping the gun here, but I'd really like to see the fix
for PR 41475 backported to 2.2.5. We're hitting this issue when
mirroring the firefox installer which has a space in the filename...
We'll probably apply the fix locally, but it would be nice to have the
mod_cache
with a glibc-2.1 (or
even 2.0). Programs which are built with glibc-2.2.x don't
necessarily work with older versions, e.g. there is no
guarantee that a build against 2.2.5 will work with 2.2.4.
- Sascha Experience IRCG
http://schumann.cx
:52:15PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
Glibc 2.2.5 was compiled with gcc3. This is supposed to be allowable
with glibc 2.2.5, since it was unsupported prior. Does anyone know of
any issues doing this?
I think you need the latest gcc version (3.0.4?) to compile glibc
2.2.5 properly. But, I'm not sure
On Fri, 2002-03-08 at 01:14, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 05:52:15PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
My binaries are portable, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. I'm
trying to gather information as I continue to try to chase down the
php4.2-dev + apache2 issue on this
Right. I read that as well. There's info in the glibc docs about that.
Anyway, I've found that as LONG as you are using glibc 3.0.3 or 3.0.4,
with glibc 2.2.5, then the compatibility problem goes away. (per the
glibc changelog from 2.2.5)
This is specifically in the realm of 2.2.x, not previous
Glibc 2.2.5 was compiled with gcc3. This is supposed to be allowable
with glibc 2.2.5, since it was unsupported prior. Does anyone know of
any issues doing this?
My binaries are portable, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. I'm
trying to gather information as I continue to try to chase down
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 05:52:15PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
Glibc 2.2.5 was compiled with gcc3. This is supposed to be allowable
with glibc 2.2.5, since it was unsupported prior. Does anyone know of
any issues doing this?
I think you need the latest gcc version (3.0.4?) to compile glibc
53 matches
Mail list logo
