Re: jtc rpms
Quoting Bojan Smojver [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 00:50, Henri Gomez wrote: Welcome back from holidays, Thanks hope you had a good time... Rainy ;[ I propose to create a snapshot subdir in jtc, snapshot, and provide here the necessary binaries, for example Linux rpms .so, windows, netware, iis are welcome also. http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-tomcat-connectors/snapshot/rpms/ We could have right now : http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-tomcat-connectors/snapshot/v4.1.9-beta/ rpms/ What do you think about that ? I think this is generally a good idea but I just wanted to clear another possible source of confusion. Is there some sort of dependency between modules and Apache 2.0.x versions? Yes, with latest Apache 2.0, modules should be compiled against the proper Apache 2.0, so if you have a mod_jk built against 2.0.39, you need to recompile it to make use of jk under Apache 2.0.40 ;( It will be a pain for many distributions and modules maintainers (binary), so I hope HTTP 2.0 team will relax it a little or consider version update and functionnalities updates. I ran into this with mod_jk 1.2.0 from CVS (i.e. had to rebuild the module when the version of Apache was bumped from 2.0.39 to 2.0.40). I almost always do static linking, but I was wandering if that applies to DSO's as well (my experience with building PHP 4.2.2 tells me it does). If so, I think we should also clearly mark what Apache version that particular module is for. Yes, ie mod_jk-1.2.0-apache-2.0.40.so Also, do we need to tie JTC to a particular Tomcat version, like in your example to 4.1.9? It didn't tie to tomcat version but rather to jtc snapshot ;) My understanding is that the web server (Apache) part doesn't care much about what's behind it, as long as it speaks the correct protocol version. Maybe there should be a README file instead, listing all known Tomcat version combos for a particular JTC version... I agree, and we refer to the jtc tag name instead of a particular tomcat version. You could use mod_jk 1.2.0 tagged at tc 4.1.9 time with tc 3.3.1 regards -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: jtc rpms
On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 18:56, Henri Gomez wrote: Quoting Bojan Smojver [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 00:50, Henri Gomez wrote: Welcome back from holidays, Thanks hope you had a good time... Rainy ;[ Sorry to hear that :-( Yes, with latest Apache 2.0, modules should be compiled against the proper Apache 2.0, so if you have a mod_jk built against 2.0.39, you need to recompile it to make use of jk under Apache 2.0.40 ;( It will be a pain for many distributions and modules maintainers (binary), so I hope HTTP 2.0 team will relax it a little or consider version update and functionnalities updates. I was hoping it was a temporary thing. Otherwise it truly looked like a nightmare... Yes, ie mod_jk-1.2.0-apache-2.0.40.so Yep, exactly. I agree, and we refer to the jtc tag name instead of a particular tomcat version. You could use mod_jk 1.2.0 tagged at tc 4.1.9 time with tc 3.3.1 That's right. On packaging, the file explaining the compatibility might also be included in the RPM itself. Bojan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: jtc rpms
On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 00:50, Henri Gomez wrote: Welcome back from holidays, hope you had a good time... I propose to create a snapshot subdir in jtc, snapshot, and provide here the necessary binaries, for example Linux rpms .so, windows, netware, iis are welcome also. http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-tomcat-connectors/snapshot/rpms/ We could have right now : http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-tomcat-connectors/snapshot/v4.1.9-beta/ rpms/ What do you think about that ? I think this is generally a good idea but I just wanted to clear another possible source of confusion. Is there some sort of dependency between modules and Apache 2.0.x versions? I ran into this with mod_jk 1.2.0 from CVS (i.e. had to rebuild the module when the version of Apache was bumped from 2.0.39 to 2.0.40). I almost always do static linking, but I was wandering if that applies to DSO's as well (my experience with building PHP 4.2.2 tells me it does). If so, I think we should also clearly mark what Apache version that particular module is for. Also, do we need to tie JTC to a particular Tomcat version, like in your example to 4.1.9? My understanding is that the web server (Apache) part doesn't care much about what's behind it, as long as it speaks the correct protocol version. Maybe there should be a README file instead, listing all known Tomcat version combos for a particular JTC version... Bojan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
