Re: 1.6 release?

2018-09-05 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:40 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On 25 August 2018 at 16:14, Rainer Jung wrote: > > > > There's a list of changes done by Ivan Zhakov starting with 1785072 in > early > > 2017 to improve Win32 file I/O performance. Maybe Ivan can tell, whether > > they can and should be

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-09-03 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On 25 August 2018 at 16:14, Rainer Jung wrote: > Am 24.08.2018 um 23:41 schrieb Nick Kew: >> >> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:16:54 -0400 >> 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

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-09-02 Thread William A Rowe Jr
(Again, for the list.) Pressing pause, thanks for the heads up. AFAIK this is the last of open(?) issues. I'll dig deeper into this Monday... If anyone in EU has hints scribbled down somewhere please share. Thanks for (re-)raising! On Sun, Sep 2, 2018, 03:43 Rainer Jung wrote: > I think the

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-09-02 Thread Rainer Jung
I think the following, especially the part about 1834513 is still unhandled. Regards, Rainer Am 25.08.2018 um 15:22 schrieb Rainer Jung: Am 24.08.2018 um 23:41 schrieb Nick Kew: On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:16:54 -0400 Eric Covener wrote: Starting a new thread as potential RM's may be filtering

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-09-01 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 8:16 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? > Since I added the grit in the gears of this release, I'm happy to roll and

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-08-31 Thread Nick Kew
> On 30 Aug 2018, at 07:20, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > This was my workaround for 1.6.x, more eyeballs and feedback welcome. Looks fine to me. I've dug deep in memory for that change: it was down to protecting a caller who had fed bad inputs to apr_time_exp_get. The broken change was

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-08-30 Thread William A Rowe Jr
This was my workaround for 1.6.x, more eyeballs and feedback welcome. On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:23 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Nick, please note your error in line 58 here is still not cured; > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/branches/1.6.x/time/win32/time.c?view=annotate > > This

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-08-29 Thread Nick Kew
> On 29 Aug 2018, at 16:08, William Kimball Jr. > wrote: > > Speaking of suggestions, may I please suggest closing a glaring security hole > in apr_dbd_mysql, per https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62342? I > have provided diffs for 1.5 -- because my organization uses RHEL 7,

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-08-29 Thread William Kimball Jr.
Speaking of suggestions, may I please suggest closing a glaring security hole in apr_dbd_mysql, per https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62342? I have provided diffs for 1.5 -- because my organization uses RHEL 7, which uses APR 1.5 -- and 2.0 -- because someone on this list

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-08-29 Thread Nick Kew
> On 27 Aug 2018, at 04:18, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Let's take a few more days on this. We are getting more and more good > suggestions as git merge requests to girhub.com/apache/app that are worth a > look. What do you envisage doing with those days? The motivation for a release is

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-08-26 Thread William A Rowe Jr
For our consideration... https://github.com/apache/apr/pulls On Sun, Aug 26, 2018, 22:18 William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Let's take a few more days on this. We are getting more and more good > suggestions as git merge requests to girhub.com/apache/app that are worth > a look. > > On Fri, Aug 24,

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-08-26 Thread William A Rowe Jr
Let's take a few more days on this. We are getting more and more good suggestions as git merge requests to girhub.com/apache/app that are worth a look. On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 08:17 Eric Covener wrote: > Starting a new thread as potential RM's may be filtering bugzilla emails. > > There are a lot

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-08-25 Thread Nick Kew
> On 25 Aug 2018, at 14:14, Rainer Jung wrote: > > > There's a list of changes done by Ivan Zhakov starting with 1785072 in early > 2017 to improve Win32 file I/O performance. Maybe Ivan can tell, whether they > can and should be backported to 1.7 (and 1.6?). My thought would be 1.7

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-08-25 Thread Rainer Jung
Am 24.08.2018 um 23:41 schrieb Nick Kew: On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:16:54 -0400 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? You've spurred me into reviewing

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-08-25 Thread Rainer Jung
Am 24.08.2018 um 23:41 schrieb Nick Kew: On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:16:54 -0400 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? You've spurred me into reviewing

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-08-24 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:42 PM Nick Kew wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:16:54 -0400 > 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? > >

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-08-24 Thread Nick Kew
On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:16:54 -0400 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? You've spurred me into reviewing changes in svn since last release. There

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-08-24 Thread Dennis Clarke
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?

2018-08-24 Thread Jim Jagielski
If no one volunteers, I will. > On Aug 24, 2018, at 9:16 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? > > -- > Eric Covener > cove...@gmail.com

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-08-24 Thread Eric Covener
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 > > anyone RM? > > > > I am running a

Re: 1.6 release?

2018-08-24 Thread Dennis Clarke
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: 1.6 release timetable

2017-04-07 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Nick Kew wrote: > On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 23:31:34 + > Nick Kew wrote: > > One thing catches my eye. In STATUS, a proposal added by > Jim in 2013 of, but with no votes to it: > > * Add object perms set macros and implement

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-04-07 Thread Nick Kew
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 23:31:34 + Nick Kew wrote: > [chop] We're looking nearly ready: I have just one more thing to do (apart from re-testing on Mac with the latest fixes). One thing catches my eye. In STATUS, a proposal added by Jim in 2013 of, but with no votes to it:

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-25 Thread Florian Weimer
* Yann Ylavic: >> It's been a bit of a struggle to get this right. > > I think the confusion comes from the term "directory stream", which > people (at least me :p ) may read as underlying directory (i.e. > filesystem's), though it's the term used to talk about the DIR* in the > whole man page...

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-25 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Yann Ylavic: >> "In the current POSIX.1 specification (POSIX.1-2008), >> readdir() is not required to be thread-safe. However, in modern >> implementations (including the glibc implementation), concurrent

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-25 Thread Florian Weimer
* Yann Ylavic: > [Resend to the whole list, sorry Florian for private message] > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >> Right, modern readdir()s seem to be thread-safe but with regard to >> different directories only, at least Linux' man page states: >>

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-25 Thread Yann Ylavic
[Resend to the whole list, sorry Florian for private message] On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > Right, modern readdir()s seem to be thread-safe but with regard to > different directories only, at least Linux' man page states: > "In the current

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-25 Thread Florian Weimer
* Yann Ylavic: >> readdir is thread-safe. There used to be this idea that fdopendir >> could be implemented like this: >> >> DIR * >> fdopendir (int fd) >> { >> return (DIR *) fd; >> } >> >> And readdir would use a static buffer for the directory entry (like >> gethostbyname) instead of

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-25 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Yann Ylavic: > >> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:35 PM, William A Rowe Jr >> wrote: >>> >>> I haven't built 1.x branch against openssl 110 yet, >> >> I did with 1.6.x (on latest Debian's libbsl-1.1)

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-25 Thread Florian Weimer
* Yann Ylavic: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:35 PM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: >> >> I haven't built 1.x branch against openssl 110 yet, > > I did with 1.6.x (on latest Debian's libbsl-1.1) with no issue. > >> so here's some Unix (latest Fedora) feedback; >> >>

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-25 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:35 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > I haven't built 1.x branch against openssl 110 yet, I did with 1.6.x (on latest Debian's libbsl-1.1) with no issue. > so here's some Unix (latest Fedora) feedback; > > ../../apr-1.6/file_io/unix/dir.c: In

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-24 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote: > On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 10:13 -0700, Gregg Smith wrote: > >> My retro build changes and Jan's revised patch have been commited. >> Windows should be good to go. > > Brilliant, thanks both. +1 > I'll take the activity on this

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-23 Thread Nick Kew
On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 10:13 -0700, Gregg Smith wrote: > My retro build changes and Jan's revised patch have been commited. > Windows should be good to go. Brilliant, thanks both. I'll take the activity on this issue as an indication that Windows was already *otherwise* good. Unless we hear to

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-23 Thread Gregg Smith
On 3/22/2017 8:30 AM, Nick Kew wrote: Gregg, any thoughts on a timeframe for commit? Obviously nice-to-have, though I'm also thinking if we have to release without a fix, we can at least use Jan's latest post in a release note. -- Nick Kew My retro

Re: 1.6 release timetable - diffCMakeLists-jan.patch (1/1)

2017-03-23 Thread Jan Ehrhardt
begin 644 diffCMakeLists-jan.patch M26YD97@Z($--86ME3=',N='AT#0H]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T] M/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T]/3T] M#0HM+2T@0TUA:V5,:7-T'0)*')E=FES:6]N(#$W.#2D-"D!`("TR,S@L-R`K,C,X

Re: 1.6 release timetable - diffCMakeLists-jan.patch (0/1)

2017-03-23 Thread Jan Ehrhardt
Gregg Smith in gmane.comp.apache.apr.devel (Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:20:54 -0700): >I got a patch for cmake from Jan (attached) which ended up off list due >to the way "reply" works on this list. The patch added -DAPR_DECLARE_EXPORT=1 -DAPU_DECLARE_EXPORT=1 twice to apr_crypto_openssl. New patch

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-22 Thread Gregg Smith
On 3/22/2017 8:30 AM, Nick Kew wrote: [sorry, reposting by cut from this morning when mail was broken] On Sun, 2017-03-19 at 20:44 -0700, Gregg Smith wrote: On Sun, 2017-03-19 at 20:44 -0700, Gregg Smith wrote: > I've been hacking on the .mak and .win files. > Had to add a

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-22 Thread Nick Kew
[sorry, reposting by cut from this morning when mail was broken] On Sun, 2017-03-19 at 20:44 -0700, Gregg Smith wrote: On Sun, 2017-03-19 at 20:44 -0700, Gregg Smith wrote: > I've been hacking on the .mak and .win files. > Had to add a -ossl1 to apr/build/cvtdsp.pl for the

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-22 Thread Nick Kew
[sorry, reposting by cut from this morning when mail was broken] On Mon, 2017-03-20 at 03:20 +0100, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > Jan Ehrhardt in gmane.comp.apache.apr.devel (Sun, 19 Mar 2017 20:21:47 +0100): > >>So, the answer to the question "does it work for you?" seems to be No.

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-19 Thread Gregg Smith
Arg, this list bites me again. Sorry for the double Jan. On 3/19/2017 11:44 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: Nick Kew in gmane.comp.apache.apr.devel (Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:57:37 +): On Sat, 2017-03-18 at 08:28 +0100, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: Will this 1.6 release contain support of OpenSSL 1.1.x or is

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-19 Thread Jan Ehrhardt
Jan Ehrhardt in gmane.comp.apache.apr.devel (Mon, 20 Mar 2017 03:20:36 +0100): >. compile apr-util, with the CMake args on 1 line: snip >call msbuild APR.sln /p:Configuration=RelWithDebInfo /p:Platform=x64 Copy-paste eror. For apr-util this has to be call msbuild APR-Util.sln

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-19 Thread Jan Ehrhardt
Jan Ehrhardt in gmane.comp.apache.apr.devel (Sun, 19 Mar 2017 20:21:47 +0100): >>So, the answer to the question "does it work for you?" seems to be No. > >Or Yes, if CMake works. I will try that later. CMake almost works. I had the following dirs - apr - apr - apr-util - xml - openssl

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-19 Thread Jan Ehrhardt
Jan Ehrhardt in gmane.comp.apache.apr.devel (Sun, 19 Mar 2017 19:44:01 +0100): >The 2 Windows related files in apr/apr-util/crypto still use the pre-1.1 >OpenSSL lib files, libeay32.lib and ssleay32.lib:

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-19 Thread Jan Ehrhardt
Nick Kew in gmane.comp.apache.apr.devel (Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:57:37 +): >On Sat, 2017-03-18 at 08:28 +0100, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > >> Will this 1.6 release contain support of OpenSSL 1.1.x or is that part >> of a future release? > >Good question. I see no bugzilla entry for it. A quick search

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-18 Thread Nick Kew
On Sat, 2017-03-18 at 08:28 +0100, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > Nick Kew in gmane.comp.apache.apr.devel (Fri, 17 Mar 2017 23:31:34 > +): > >We have a backlog of mostly-minor fixes to 1.x unreleased. > >I think we're all agreed that the best way to deal with them > >is to roll a 1.6 release. > > Will

Re: 1.6 release timetable

2017-03-18 Thread Jan Ehrhardt
Nick Kew in gmane.comp.apache.apr.devel (Fri, 17 Mar 2017 23:31:34 +): >We have a backlog of mostly-minor fixes to 1.x unreleased. >I think we're all agreed that the best way to deal with them >is to roll a 1.6 release. Will this 1.6 release contain support of OpenSSL 1.1.x or is that part of