Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
My apologies for the Disclaimer at the bottom. I had forgotten that it was appended to all outgoing email. I've asked that it be not appended to dev-http email address, so this is basically my test to see if that work was done correctly. 2 questions to start: - where does one find the approved source for a specific release (I.e. 2.2.24)? I found the 2.2.x branch, but not sure if that is the correct location of the latest approved release, release candidate; do I need to specify tags, etc. - Any trick to getting Win32 files (CRLF instead of LF only)? On 3/11/13 3:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:41:48 + Dwayne Miller dwayne.mil...@nc4.us wrote: I'm rejoining this list after several years of inactivity. I'm joining primarily in regards to this thread. I would like to help if possible. We are starting from scratch with 2.4.x. Several key reasons; - Long past time to shift to an OSS msi packaging solution. - ... with a package schema which supports 'upgrade' - ... and rewrites utf-8 paths within the stock .conf files - Deploys cgi-bin/conf/logs/htdocs/proxy/cache to a non-static, path outside of program files (perhaps a tree beneath c:\Program Data\Apache Software Foundatation\, but why is that hidden?) I'm also curious as to the reason for the absence of the MSI build for the two most recent releases? Is this a volunteer issue? Is it a technology issue? A license issue? Well first off, they are always a convenience. ASF projects release source code. Some ship binaries or jars for user convenience, but those aren't releases. Binaries are largely left to platform packagers as you'll see looking for a long list of platforms underneath http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/ . Netware and Win32 had traditionally had these since there weren't 'packagers' in the unix sense of the term. A system crash on this volunteer's box led to the gap for Windows. Which has led me to creating VM's for antique VC6 (httpd 2.2) and modern Visual studio so I never have this ordeal again. Almost had this resolved at ApacheCon until I realized I had six database devel packages to install for all supported apr-util dbd/dbm backends. Should be wrapped up in the next couple of days now that I'm back at my own office after an extended stay in Portland. But that catches us up with 2.2.23 and 2.2.24 builds, see above why I had held off of 2.4.x releases. Once we ship one 2.4.x MSI there will be no incentive to get this right until 3.x. I have read the list, and just not sure what triggered the topic after years of MSI builds being available on the site. See bullet list above. I have started looking at the MSI project code, the instructions for building in a windows environment (I normally build for Mac OSX, but have access to Windows/MS tools too). Hopefully I'll be caught up soon. Sounds great. Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, distributing, copying, or in any way using this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy and delete any copies you may have received. Really? You violated that disclaimer under your own volition publishing your note to public forum. But we would really rather not read that sort of claptrap on the public dev lists, thanks.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On 3/12/2013 11:10 AM, Dwayne Miller wrote: My apologies for the Disclaimer at the bottom. I had forgotten that it was appended to all outgoing email. I've asked that it be not appended to dev-http email address, so this is basically my test to see if that work was done correctly. 2 questions to start: - where does one find the approved source for a specific release (I.e. 2.2.24)? I found the 2.2.x branch, but not sure if that is the correct location of the latest approved release, release candidate; do I need to specify tags, etc. - Any trick to getting Win32 files (CRLF instead of LF only)? If you export the tag on a Windows OS, it should come with CRLF. If you use the Unix tarball, just run lineends.pl on it from the command line C:\httpd-2.2.24 srclib\apr\build\lineends.pl
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
I'm rejoining this list after several years of inactivity. I'm joining primarily in regards to this thread. I would like to help if possible. I'm also curious as to the reason for the absence of the MSI build for the two most recent releases? Is this a volunteer issue? Is it a technology issue? A license issue? I have read the list, and just not sure what triggered the topic after years of MSI builds being available on the site. I have started looking at the MSI project code, the instructions for building in a windows environment (I normally build for Mac OSX, but have access to Windows/MS tools too). Hopefully I'll be caught up soon. Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, distributing, copying, or in any way using this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy and delete any copies you may have received.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:41:48 + Dwayne Miller dwayne.mil...@nc4.us wrote: I'm rejoining this list after several years of inactivity. I'm joining primarily in regards to this thread. I would like to help if possible. We are starting from scratch with 2.4.x. Several key reasons; - Long past time to shift to an OSS msi packaging solution. - ... with a package schema which supports 'upgrade' - ... and rewrites utf-8 paths within the stock .conf files - Deploys cgi-bin/conf/logs/htdocs/proxy/cache to a non-static, path outside of program files (perhaps a tree beneath c:\Program Data\Apache Software Foundatation\, but why is that hidden?) I'm also curious as to the reason for the absence of the MSI build for the two most recent releases? Is this a volunteer issue? Is it a technology issue? A license issue? Well first off, they are always a convenience. ASF projects release source code. Some ship binaries or jars for user convenience, but those aren't releases. Binaries are largely left to platform packagers as you'll see looking for a long list of platforms underneath http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/ . Netware and Win32 had traditionally had these since there weren't 'packagers' in the unix sense of the term. A system crash on this volunteer's box led to the gap for Windows. Which has led me to creating VM's for antique VC6 (httpd 2.2) and modern Visual studio so I never have this ordeal again. Almost had this resolved at ApacheCon until I realized I had six database devel packages to install for all supported apr-util dbd/dbm backends. Should be wrapped up in the next couple of days now that I'm back at my own office after an extended stay in Portland. But that catches us up with 2.2.23 and 2.2.24 builds, see above why I had held off of 2.4.x releases. Once we ship one 2.4.x MSI there will be no incentive to get this right until 3.x. I have read the list, and just not sure what triggered the topic after years of MSI builds being available on the site. See bullet list above. I have started looking at the MSI project code, the instructions for building in a windows environment (I normally build for Mac OSX, but have access to Windows/MS tools too). Hopefully I'll be caught up soon. Sounds great. Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, distributing, copying, or in any way using this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy and delete any copies you may have received. Really? You violated that disclaimer under your own volition publishing your note to public forum. But we would really rather not read that sort of claptrap on the public dev lists, thanks.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
- Original Message - On 11/28/2012 1:26 AM, Igor Galić wrote: I believe there's a couple of things we all sort of agree on: * current state is not welcomed by users and early adopters I'm not sure what you mean by current state. Regardless, early adopters know no better. * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build * That's a big task, so we should start with small steps: * Getting the damn thing to build with the latest VC I disagree, I think we should use one where the current mod_php will load (i.e. match versions) which is currently VC9 (2008). Also, I know no one wants to support XP or Server 2003, but these are being used and will stick around till completely dead (April 2014 IIRC). The latest VC builds will not run on either these OSs. I think the main reason I consider this to be a good idea is that supporting a stable 2.4 ABI with VC9 means committing to a compiler which is already 4 years old. PHP doesn't support our builds, they support Apache Lounge's. Apache Lounge uses VC9 because of PHP, I presume. * Getting it to build without babysitting define babysitting. * it can be scripted and hence executed on a buildbot * it doesn't break with every new release * using that build to create something that can be installed one way or another: zip, msi, whatevz * (semi) automating the build Gregg Has anyone consider that in the meanwhile we update our website to officially endorse ApacheLounge? i -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org URL: http://brainsware.org/ GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
Has anyone consider that in the meanwhile we update our website to officially endorse ApacheLounge? -0.9; Seems like a lot of baggage to carry, and I think we should have our own contributed builds.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On 11/29/2012 7:42 AM, Igor Galić wrote: Has anyone consider that in the meanwhile we update our website to officially endorse ApacheLounge? Not endorse any, just list the possibilities, there are a few.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
+1 On Nov 29, 2012 2:34 PM, Gregg Smith g...@gknw.net wrote: On 11/29/2012 7:42 AM, Igor Galić wrote: Has anyone consider that in the meanwhile we update our website to officially endorse ApacheLounge? Not endorse any, just list the possibilities, there are a few.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Gregg Smith g...@gknw.net wrote: On 11/29/2012 7:42 AM, Igor Galić wrote: Has anyone consider that in the meanwhile we update our website to officially endorse ApacheLounge? Not endorse any, just list the possibilities, there are a few. I definitely feel better about that phrasing.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
Does you guys agree with the layout that Apache Lounge uses? -Will - Original Message - From: Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:35 PM Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build +1 On Nov 29, 2012 2:34 PM, Gregg Smith g...@gknw.net wrote: On 11/29/2012 7:42 AM, Igor Galić wrote: Has anyone consider that in the meanwhile we update our website to officially endorse ApacheLounge? Not endorse any, just list the possibilities, there are a few.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Will william.leon...@lxcenter.org wrote: Does you guys agree with the layout that Apache Lounge uses? I wouldn't interpret the proposal that way.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
I would just like to know your thoughts on the layout that they use with the zip. -Will - Original Message - From: Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 2:10 PM Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Will william.leon...@lxcenter.org wrote: Does you guys agree with the layout that Apache Lounge uses? I wouldn't interpret the proposal that way.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
- Original Message - the only point to resolve is that Gregg cant do the releases self but needs a PMC for signing and putting up the artifacts - but I'm willing to assist with that once we get some agreement to put his stuff up Sorry for not commenting earlier . I'm +0.9 (+1 but know this stuff is not up my alley). I don't think we need to wait for these to be perfect, but we should somehow telegraph that the build/packaging of contributed Windows binaries is a work in progress. I believe there's a couple of things we all sort of agree on: * current state is not welcomed by users and early adopters * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build * That's a big task, so we should start with small steps: * Getting the damn thing to build with the latest VC * Getting it to build without babysitting * using that build to create something that can be installed one way or another: zip, msi, whatevz * (semi) automating the build This effort doesn't have to be driven by a single person. Particularly because the single steps may require different kinds of skills and talents. (Speaking with my OpenCSW Hat on: Building software for a non standard platform is boring and frustrating ;) So long, i -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org URL: http://brainsware.org/ GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:26 AM, Igor Galić i.ga...@brainsware.org wrote: * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build Why?
RE: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
-Original Message- From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 28. November 2012 13:22 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:26 AM, Igor Galić i.ga...@brainsware.org wrote: * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build Why? Exactly. Binaries are just convenience. I support people here that want to create whatever Windows binary (zip, exe, msi) as a convenience to our users, but the official distributions are IMHO always source distributions. Regards Rüdiger
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
- Original Message - -Original Message- From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 28. November 2012 13:22 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:26 AM, Igor Galić i.ga...@brainsware.org wrote: * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build Why? Exactly. Binaries are just convenience. I support people here that want to create whatever Windows binary (zip, exe, msi) as a convenience to our users, but the official distributions are IMHO always source distributions. You know that, and I know that. Jst as our Windows users know they have no use for source code. i Regards Rüdiger -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org URL: http://brainsware.org/ GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
RE: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
A Windows binary build is important to do for both influencing the Windows users and the code design quality of Apache itself, unless you all hate to care about both;) Regards, Bing -Original Message- From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 8:22 PM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:26 AM, Igor Galić i.ga...@brainsware.org wrote: * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build Why?
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On Wednesday 28 November 2012 15:01:15 Igor Galić wrote: - Original Message - -Original Message- From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 28. November 2012 13:22 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:26 AM, Igor Galić i.ga...@brainsware.org wrote: * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build Why? Exactly. Binaries are just convenience. I support people here that want to create whatever Windows binary (zip, exe, msi) as a convenience to our users, but the official distributions are IMHO always source distributions. You know that, and I know that. Jst as our Windows users know they have no use for source code. The discussion is moot. The ASF will not provide binary software. nd
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:35 AM, André Malo n...@perlig.de wrote: You know that, and I know that. Jst as our Windows users know they have no use for source code. The discussion is moot. The ASF will not provide binary software. Is that a new policy? ASF has provided (i.e. made available on httpd.apache.org distribution mirrors) Windows binaries of HTTPD for (I can say every release, since I did not check, but you get the idea). The last one released was on 30-Jan-2012 of httpd-2.2.22-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8t.msi (see http://www.us.apache.org/dist//httpd/binaries/win32/). There are *still* NetWare binaries being built.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On Wednesday 28 November 2012 17:02:30 Yehuda Katz wrote: On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:35 AM, André Malo n...@perlig.de wrote: You know that, and I know that. Jst as our Windows users know they have no use for source code. The discussion is moot. The ASF will not provide binary software. Is that a new policy? ASF has provided (i.e. made available on httpd.apache.org distribution mirrors) Windows binaries of HTTPD for (I can say every release, since I did not check, but you get the idea). The last one released was on 30-Jan-2012 of httpd-2.2.22-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8t.msi (see http://www.us.apache.org/dist//httpd/binaries/win32/). There are *still* NetWare binaries being built. No, the ASF has not. And the policy (nor this discussion) is not new. Some individuals have provided those builds. Nobody has voted on them (because, how could one - I know, I wouldn't). They are not official relases. And that's where the circle closes. The ASF does not and can not provide binary builds. Volunteering individuals may do that. nd
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On 11/28/2012 1:26 AM, Igor Galić wrote: I believe there's a couple of things we all sort of agree on: * current state is not welcomed by users and early adopters I'm not sure what you mean by current state. Regardless, early adopters know no better. * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build * That's a big task, so we should start with small steps: * Getting the damn thing to build with the latest VC I disagree, I think we should use one where the current mod_php will load (i.e. match versions) which is currently VC9 (2008). Also, I know no one wants to support XP or Server 2003, but these are being used and will stick around till completely dead (April 2014 IIRC). The latest VC builds will not run on either these OSs. * Getting it to build without babysitting define babysitting. * using that build to create something that can be installed one way or another: zip, msi, whatevz * (semi) automating the build Gregg
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On 11/28/2012 8:10 AM, André Malo wrote: On Wednesday 28 November 2012 17:02:30 Yehuda Katz wrote: On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:35 AM, André Malon...@perlig.de wrote: You know that, and I know that. Jst as our Windows users know they have no use for source code. The discussion is moot. The ASF will not provide binary software. Is that a new policy? ASF has provided (i.e. made available on httpd.apache.org distribution mirrors) Windows binaries of HTTPD for (I can say every release, since I did not check, but you get the idea). The last one released was on 30-Jan-2012 of httpd-2.2.22-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8t.msi (see http://www.us.apache.org/dist//httpd/binaries/win32/). There are *still* NetWare binaries being built. No, the ASF has not. And the policy (nor this discussion) is not new. Some individuals have provided those builds. Nobody has voted on them (because, how could one - I know, I wouldn't). They are not official relases. Which to the average user that does not know this policy, can easily be construed as Official. I have not read every word here but I see nothing jumping out at me stating they are to not to considered official. http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
* Gregg Smith wrote: On 11/28/2012 8:10 AM, André Malo wrote: Some individuals have provided those builds. Nobody has voted on them (because, how could one - I know, I wouldn't). They are not official relases. Which to the average user that does not know this policy, can easily be construed as Official. I have not read every word here but I see nothing jumping out at me stating they are to not to considered official. http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/ Yes :/ (same for netware builds, FWIW) nd -- Die Untergeschosse der Sempergalerie bleiben währenddessen aus statistischen Gründen geflutet. -- Spiegel Online
RE: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 12:27 +, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote: -Original Message- From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 28. November 2012 13:22 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:26 AM, Igor Galić i.ga...@brainsware.org wrote: * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build Why? Exactly. Binaries are just convenience. I support people here that want to create whatever Windows binary (zip, exe, msi) as a convenience to our users, but the official distributions are IMHO always source distributions. +1 There is far far far more httpd users on other operating systems than windows, what next, do binaries for all maintained RH, Suse, Gentoo, BSD, debian.. and so on as well... I mean surely nobody wants to be seen as catering for the minority and stuff the majority... if so, then quit your sys admin job and join politics :) attachment: face-smile.png signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On 11/28/2012 7:20 PM, Noel Butler wrote: There is far far far more httpd users on other operating systems than windows, what next, do binaries for all maintained RH, Suse, Gentoo, BSD, debian.. and so on as well... I mean surely nobody wants to be seen as catering for the minority and stuff the majority... if so, then quit your sys admin job and join politics :) True, but RH, Suse, Gentoo, BSD, debian and so on supplies/maintains Apache with the OS. Microsoft supplies only IIS. That is the difference. Regards, Gregg
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
The discussion is moot. The ASF will not provide binary software. nd laughs Yeah, try selling that to the AOO project and see what happens... Issac
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
Hey folks, just to revive this thread again, here's a current comment thread to our documentation on: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/platform/windows.html#comment_502 There's a couple of things to take away from this: * We made no announcements (on our website) that we're essentially dropping Windows support with 2.4 (until further notice) We should change that ;) * Some people still don't quite grasp that the ASF is driven by volunteers, no matter how professional the output may look. i - Original Message - On 18 Nov 2012, at 4:41 PM, Igor Galić i.ga...@brainsware.org wrote: Seeing how much trouble Debian's default layout causes for support I'd rather we don't mess with that. Our layout is well defined, well documented and well tested. Moving everything elsewhere is confusing at best. +1. At the very least we should continue during the v2.4 cycle what we started in the v2.4 cycle, and an upgrade shouldn't break existing configs within reason. Regards, Graham -- -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org URL: http://brainsware.org/ GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Igor Galić i.ga...@brainsware.org wrote: Hey folks, just to revive this thread again, here's a current comment thread to our documentation on: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/platform/windows.html#comment_502 There's a couple of things to take away from this: * We made no announcements (on our website) that we're essentially dropping Windows support with 2.4 (until further notice) For posterities sake -- we haven't dropped Windows support. There just aren't (currently) contributed binaries or an installer posted on our website. A note would be nice, binaries would be nicer, and an installer would probably be the nicest.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
Hey folks, Am 27.11.2012 19:13, schrieb Eric Covener: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Igor Galići.ga...@brainsware.org wrote: just to revive this thread again, here's a current comment thread to our documentation on: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/platform/windows.html#comment_502 There's a couple of things to take away from this: * We made no announcements (on our website) that we're essentially dropping Windows support with 2.4 (until further notice) For posterities sake -- we haven't dropped Windows support. There just aren't (currently) contributed binaries or an installer posted on our website. A note would be nice, binaries would be nicer, and an installer would probably be the nicest. well, I cant really get this now; I psoted here 2 times, and Gregg did post self: we have binaries available - just not msi but exe installer; and Gregg has even 64-bit versions - why dont we get some feedback about if we should put them out into release folder?? I believe these binaries are good enough to be released, and for the installer I'd say: we change the default path to c:\apache24 which is less trouble to handle on Vista and up, and see what we get on feedback of the users ... I would even be fine with only a zip archive with a batch file or script for fixing up paths in the conf file and creating a service, and perhaps we should offer that too ... the only point to resolve is that Gregg cant do the releases self but needs a PMC for signing and putting up the artifacts - but I'm willing to assist with that once we get some agreement to put his stuff up. Gün.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On 11/27/2012 5:11 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote: Hey folks, Am 27.11.2012 19:13, schrieb Eric Covener: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Igor Galići.ga...@brainsware.org wrote: just to revive this thread again, here's a current comment thread to our documentation on: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/platform/windows.html#comment_502 There's a couple of things to take away from this: * We made no announcements (on our website) that we're essentially dropping Windows support with 2.4 (until further notice) For posterities sake -- we haven't dropped Windows support. There just aren't (currently) contributed binaries or an installer posted on our website. A note would be nice, binaries would be nicer, and an installer would probably be the nicest. well, I cant really get this now; I psoted here 2 times, and Gregg did post self: we have binaries available - just not msi but exe installer; and Gregg has even 64-bit versions - why dont we get some feedback about if we should put them out into release folder?? I believe these binaries are good enough to be released, and for the installer I'd say: we change the default path to c:\apache24 which is less trouble to handle on Vista and up, and see what we get on feedback of the users ... I would even be fine with only a zip archive with a batch file or script for fixing up paths in the conf file and creating a service, and perhaps we should offer that too ... +1 on the .zip files as we have these available now. Can work towards/finish an installer after there's some sort of agreement. Gregg
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
the only point to resolve is that Gregg cant do the releases self but needs a PMC for signing and putting up the artifacts - but I'm willing to assist with that once we get some agreement to put his stuff up Sorry for not commenting earlier . I'm +0.9 (+1 but know this stuff is not up my alley). I don't think we need to wait for these to be perfect, but we should somehow telegraph that the build/packaging of contributed Windows binaries is a work in progress.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
- Original Message - On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Issac Goldstand mar...@beamartyr.net wrote: Why not go the IIS route and use a c:\wwwroot or the like for non program-file stuff (logs, cgi-bin, docs, htdocs, conf)? That is similar to what the Debian package maintainers do (see http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout ). I just wonder if it is really a good idea to have the official builds put the folders in a different place than building from source. The only other official binary for 2.4 is for Netware and there is no documentation on the wiki page if the layout is different. If you are looking for the place for data, the correct place for conf, logs, and maybe cgi-bin would be in a subfolder in %PROGRAMDATA% (PROGRAMDATA is usually C:\ProgramData\). (That is where MySQL builds appear to put their data too.) I would say that htdocs should be in a subfolder %PUBLIC%. See this MSDN blog post for more info: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/cjacks/archive/2008/02/05/where-should-i-write-program-data-instead-of-program-files.aspx Other notes about this proposal: The trick to this would be that some people enable mod_userdir in a way the will cause overlap and potential security issues: UserDir C:/Users/*/Website If htdocs is in C:\Users\Public\Website, then Location(Match) rules would proably not apply to it if accessed as ~public, which is a security problem) On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Issac Goldstand mar...@beamartyr.netwrote: Why not go the IIS route and use a c:\wwwroot or the like for non program-file stuff (logs, cgi-bin, docs, htdocs, conf)? That is similar to what the Debian package maintainers do (see http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout). I just wonder if it is really a good idea to have the official builds put the folders in a different place than building from source. The only other official binary for 2.4 is for Netware and there is no documentation on the wiki page if the layout is different. If you are looking for the place for data, the correct place for conf, logs, and maybe cgi-bin would be in a subfolder in %PROGRAMDATA% (PROGRAMDATA is usually C:\ProgramData\). (That is where MySQL builds appear to put their data too.) I would say that htdocs should be in a subfolder %PUBLIC%. See this MSDN blog post for more info: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/cjacks/archive/2008/02/05/where-should-i-write-program-data-instead-of-program-files.aspx Other notes about this proposal: The trick to this would be that some people enable mod_userdir in a way the will cause overlap and potential security issues: UserDir C:/Users/*/Website If htdocs is in C:\Users\Public\Website, then Location(Match) rules would proably not apply to it if accessed as ~public, which is a security problem) Seeing how much trouble Debian's default layout causes for support I'd rather we don't mess with that. Our layout is well defined, well documented and well tested. Moving everything elsewhere is confusing at best. i -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org URL: http://brainsware.org/ GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On 18 Nov 2012, at 4:41 PM, Igor Galić i.ga...@brainsware.org wrote: Seeing how much trouble Debian's default layout causes for support I'd rather we don't mess with that. Our layout is well defined, well documented and well tested. Moving everything elsewhere is confusing at best. +1. At the very least we should continue during the v2.4 cycle what we started in the v2.4 cycle, and an upgrade shouldn't break existing configs within reason. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
Program Files vs. drive root PF pros everything in there is protected from users other than admin PF cons everything in there is protected from users other than admin which In Vista/7/8 the administrator account is disabled but you can run things as admin if your user has admin privileges. mostly causes problems with configuring and seeing any changes in htdocs (because they really go to the virtual store) pid file and logs cannot be written in some cases. Why not go the IIS route and use a c:\wwwroot or the like for non program-file stuff (logs, cgi-bin, docs, htdocs, conf)? Issac
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Issac Goldstand mar...@beamartyr.netwrote: Why not go the IIS route and use a c:\wwwroot or the like for non program-file stuff (logs, cgi-bin, docs, htdocs, conf)? That is similar to what the Debian package maintainers do (see http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout). I just wonder if it is really a good idea to have the official builds put the folders in a different place than building from source. The only other official binary for 2.4 is for Netware and there is no documentation on the wiki page if the layout is different. If you are looking for the place for data, the correct place for conf, logs, and maybe cgi-bin would be in a subfolder in %PROGRAMDATA% (PROGRAMDATA is usually C:\ProgramData\). (That is where MySQL builds appear to put their data too.) I would say that htdocs should be in a subfolder %PUBLIC%. See this MSDN blog post for more info: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/cjacks/archive/2008/02/05/where-should-i-write-program-data-instead-of-program-files.aspx Other notes about this proposal: The trick to this would be that some people enable mod_userdir in a way the will cause overlap and potential security issues: UserDir C:/Users/*/Website If htdocs is in C:\Users\Public\Website, then Location(Match) rules would proably not apply to it if accessed as ~public, which is a security problem)
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On 11/14/2012 3:56 AM, Guenter Knauf wrote: Am 14.11.2012 12:53, schrieb Guenter Knauf: I know that Gregg has 'something' which is not MSI but an EXE installer, but it works, and I asked already a while back if we should push this out, but there was no further interest / agreement here :-( Gregg, can you perhaps put up at p.a.o what you have so far so that others can take a look and test? oh, and please also post a summarize of what we discussed about default location (system drive root vs 'Program Files') because of the right issues with Vista and up ... The 'something' is Inno Setup. 'works' is relative to as much is completed so far. I had to put this on hold for a few weeks for real life. I should get back to working on it soon. http://people.apache.org/~gsmith/httpd/installer/ Program Files vs. drive root PF pros everything in there is protected from users other than admin PF cons everything in there is protected from users other than admin which In Vista/7/8 the administrator account is disabled but you can run things as admin if your user has admin privileges. mostly causes problems with configuring and seeing any changes in htdocs (because they really go to the virtual store) pid file and logs cannot be written in some cases. Drive Root cons/pros depending on the use case nothing in there is protected from users other than admin anyone can configure anyone can modify htdocs anyone can start apache at the console (unless mod_auth_digest or mod_slotmem_shm are loaded [only tested in Vista]) the Apache service can run as a user other than SYSTEM (which allows Apache to use file shares) and Apache can be locked down to only read, read/write in certain areas of the hard drive (jailed) That's the quickest summary I can give on that. Gregg
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On 11/16/2012 12:08 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: On 11/14/2012 3:56 AM, Guenter Knauf wrote: Am 14.11.2012 12:53, schrieb Guenter Knauf: I know that Gregg has 'something' which is not MSI but an EXE installer, but it works, and I asked already a while back if we should push this out, but there was no further interest / agreement here :-( The 'something' is Inno Setup. 'works' is relative to as much is completed so far. Another 'something' is NSIS (Nullsoft) which has been picked up by others and is over at sourceforge. I used to use it a long time ago but had to give it up for Inno Setup because it was dropped by the original author. A nice thing about it is the use and availability of plugins to do a lot of things even Inno cannot do. It's probably not as sharp a learning curve as WIX. Of course, it would mean starting from scratch. I will take inventory on this Inno Setup scripts and see what is left to do here in a day or two. Gregg
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
Le 16/11/2012 21:21, Gregg Smith a écrit : Another 'something' is NSIS (Nullsoft) which has been picked up by others and is over at sourceforge. I used to use it a long time ago but had to give it up for Inno Setup because it was dropped by the original author. A nice thing about it is the use and availability of plugins to do a lot of things even Inno cannot do. It's probably not as sharp a learning curve as WIX. Of course, it would mean starting from scratch. I will take inventory on this Inno Setup scripts and see what is left to do here in a day or two. Gregg I also use Inno Setup (and NSIS in the past) at work. I could try to give some help from time to time if needed. We also chose Inno Setup because it was more actively developed and maintained. Both can only, AFAIK, build .exe files and not .msi. CJ
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
Is there a document to install on Windows from source? I'd like to run through it and create and msi and try to automate the process. -Will - Original Message - From: Gregg Smith g...@gknw.net To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 3:21 PM Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build On 11/16/2012 12:08 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: On 11/14/2012 3:56 AM, Guenter Knauf wrote: Am 14.11.2012 12:53, schrieb Guenter Knauf: I know that Gregg has 'something' which is not MSI but an EXE installer, but it works, and I asked already a while back if we should push this out, but there was no further interest / agreement here :-( The 'something' is Inno Setup. 'works' is relative to as much is completed so far. Another 'something' is NSIS (Nullsoft) which has been picked up by others and is over at sourceforge. I used to use it a long time ago but had to give it up for Inno Setup because it was dropped by the original author. A nice thing about it is the use and availability of plugins to do a lot of things even Inno cannot do. It's probably not as sharp a learning curve as WIX. Of course, it would mean starting from scratch. I will take inventory on this Inno Setup scripts and see what is left to do here in a day or two. Gregg
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
Am 12.11.2012 17:45, schrieb Issac Goldstand: but we really need something. I know that Gregg has 'something' which is not MSI but an EXE installer, but it works, and I asked already a while back if we should push this out, but there was no further interest / agreement here :-( Gregg, can you perhaps put up at p.a.o what you have so far so that others can take a look and test? Gün.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
Am 14.11.2012 12:53, schrieb Guenter Knauf: Am 12.11.2012 17:45, schrieb Issac Goldstand: but we really need something. I know that Gregg has 'something' which is not MSI but an EXE installer, but it works, and I asked already a while back if we should push this out, but there was no further interest / agreement here :-( Gregg, can you perhaps put up at p.a.o what you have so far so that others can take a look and test? oh, and please also post a summarize of what we discussed about default location (system drive root vs 'Program Files') because of the right issues with Vista and up ... Gün.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
- Original Message - Am 14.11.2012 12:53, schrieb Guenter Knauf: Am 12.11.2012 17:45, schrieb Issac Goldstand: but we really need something. I know that Gregg has 'something' which is not MSI but an EXE installer, but it works, and I asked already a while back if we should push this out, but there was no further interest / agreement here :-( Gregg, can you perhaps put up at p.a.o what you have so far so that others can take a look and test? oh, and please also post a summarize of what we discussed about default location (system drive root vs 'Program Files') because of the right issues with Vista and up ... To emphasized this again: I asked infra for a Windows Server VM with the latest Microsoft buildtools[1] - so this is bound to be Vista and up... Gün. So long, i [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5509 -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org URL: http://brainsware.org/ GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Volunteers to drive an MSI build
Hi folks, At ApacheCon I discussed with the few httpd and Infra folks that it would be a Really Good Idea to have, once again, an MSI build for Windows. Of course we shouldn't be satisfied with the same arduous release process as we had for 2.2 - and instead strive to automate it! I have opened an INFRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5509 to setup a Windows Server VM/buildbot - and am now looking for volunteers to step forward. - Just raise your hand here and update the the above ticket with your Apache ID. (Yes, you need to be a committer already) You'll get a login on the machine once it's setup and can fiddle around and poke until you make it work - out of the box. o/~ -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org URL: http://brainsware.org/ GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On 12/11/2012 15:15, Igor Galić wrote: to setup a Windows Server VM/buildbot - and am now looking for volunteers to step forward. - Just raise your hand here and update the the above ticket with your Apache ID. (Yes, you need to be a committer already) Raises hand...
Volunteers to drive an MSI build
William Rowe said he was working on a new WiX-based installer (that is the same installer that Microsoft now uses for Visual Studio). http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-users/201210.mbox/%3c5085fe9a@rowe-clan.net%3e That should make the process significantly easier. - Y On Monday, November 12, 2012, Igor Galić wrote: Hi folks, At ApacheCon I discussed with the few httpd and Infra folks that it would be a Really Good Idea to have, once again, an MSI build for Windows. Of course we shouldn't be satisfied with the same arduous release process as we had for 2.2 - and instead strive to automate it! I have opened an INFRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5509 to setup a Windows Server VM/buildbot - and am now looking for volunteers to step forward. - Just raise your hand here and update the the above ticket with your Apache ID. (Yes, you need to be a committer already) You'll get a login on the machine once it's setup and can fiddle around and poke until you make it work - out of the box. o/~ -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org URL: http://brainsware.org/ GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On 12/11/2012 18:03, Yehuda Katz wrote: William Rowe said he was working on a new WiX-based installer That would be great if Bill has the cycles to push it through - I know he's been uber-busy for a long while already, and he has the best working knowledge of windows installer-y things so far, but we really need something. Regardless, it would still be great to hook the WiX installer into a buildbot.
