Mailing List Archive

A push for 2.4.2
In the attempts to keep the momentum going, I'd like to push for
a httpd 2.4.2 release Real Soon Now.
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
On 3/14/2012 2:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> In the attempts to keep the momentum going, I'd like to push for
> a httpd 2.4.2 release Real Soon Now.

Then this afternoon I'll propose a 'really small patch' around
'the win32 issue' and ask folks who have had problems, and those who
have not, to test it out. It appears MSDN documentation was not our
friend and their directives were misplaced, and the patch should drop
some code (not used back in 2.2) which might be the underlying cause
of Steffan and crew's issues.

We would probably hear back within the day, so windows folks would
be very happy with a T&R sometime Friday-Monday. I just can't recall
offhand if all the win32 quirks in apr were resolved in 1.4.6, or
a new T&R is still needed on that side?
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
On 15/03/2012 07:29, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 3/14/2012 2:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> In the attempts to keep the momentum going, I'd like to push for
>> a httpd 2.4.2 release Real Soon Now.
> Then this afternoon I'll propose a 'really small patch' around
> 'the win32 issue' and ask folks who have had problems, and those who
> have not, to test it out. It appears MSDN documentation was not our
> friend and their directives were misplaced, and the patch should drop
> some code (not used back in 2.2) which might be the underlying cause
> of Steffan and crew's issues.
>
> We would probably hear back within the day, so windows folks would
> be very happy with a T&R sometime Friday-Monday. I just can't recall
> offhand if all the win32 quirks in apr were resolved in 1.4.6, or
> a new T&R is still needed on that side
bill++ :)

Any chance you can elaborate on "It appears MSDN documentation was not
our friend... etc"?

Issac
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
On 15/03/2012 07:29, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 3/14/2012 2:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> In the attempts to keep the momentum going, I'd like to push for
>> a httpd 2.4.2 release Real Soon Now.
> Then this afternoon I'll propose a 'really small patch' around
> 'the win32 issue' and ask folks who have had problems, and those who
> have not, to test it out. It appears MSDN documentation was not our
> friend and their directives were misplaced, and the patch should drop
> some code (not used back in 2.2) which might be the underlying cause
> of Steffan and crew's issues.
>
> We would probably hear back within the day, so windows folks would
> be very happy with a T&R sometime Friday-Monday. I just can't recall
> offhand if all the win32 quirks in apr were resolved in 1.4.6, or
> a new T&R is still needed on that side
bill++ :)

Any chance you can elaborate on "It appears MSDN documentation... etc"?

Issac
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
On 3/15/2012 4:07 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote:
>
> Any chance you can elaborate on "It appears MSDN documentation was not
> our friend... etc"?

From MSDN and my understanding of the new wait-on-event API, it appeared
that MSDN suggested these would be defaults and we would have to adjust
for apr's assumptions (in server/mpm/winnt/child.c);

/* Restore the state corresponding to apr_os_sock_make's default
* assumption of timeout -1 (really, a flaw of os_sock_make and
* os_sock_put that it does not query to determine ->timeout).
* XXX: Upon a fix to APR, these three statements should disappear.
*/
ioctlsocket(context->accept_socket, FIONBIO, &zero);
setsockopt(context->accept_socket, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVTIMEO,
(char *) &zero, sizeof(zero));
setsockopt(context->accept_socket, SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDTIMEO,
(char *) &zero, sizeof(zero));

but no, apparently this is not the case, and these can't be assumed to be
appropriate for both AcceptEx and accept style logic.
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
Bill,

Us Windows folk would be ecstatic! It is affecting a few noisy users,
then there's the silent masses :)
Not sure what APR quirks, refresh my memory.
I'm +1 for a APU 1.4.2 also, crypto not building for static lib throws a
decent sized monkey wrench into the httpd build. Then maybe we can
connect the dots in the .dsw files and in makefile.win (which you have
started sort of).

Gregg

On 3/14/2012 10:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 3/14/2012 2:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> In the attempts to keep the momentum going, I'd like to push for
>> a httpd 2.4.2 release Real Soon Now.
> Then this afternoon I'll propose a 'really small patch' around
> 'the win32 issue' and ask folks who have had problems, and those who
> have not, to test it out. It appears MSDN documentation was not our
> friend and their directives were misplaced, and the patch should drop
> some code (not used back in 2.2) which might be the underlying cause
> of Steffan and crew's issues.
>
> We would probably hear back within the day, so windows folks would
> be very happy with a T&R sometime Friday-Monday. I just can't recall
> offhand if all the win32 quirks in apr were resolved in 1.4.6, or
> a new T&R is still needed on that side?
>
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
Gregg, I believe these overrides are either not needed at all, or are
not needed in specific cases, and have yet to determine which is the
case that the users are experiencing.

Is anyone complaining about AcceptFilter data or connection? If not,
then these lines of code simply need to be dodged for AcceptFilter none.

On 3/15/2012 6:06 AM, Gregg Smith wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Us Windows folk would be ecstatic! It is affecting a few noisy users, then there's the
> silent masses :)
> Not sure what APR quirks, refresh my memory.
> I'm +1 for a APU 1.4.2 also, crypto not building for static lib throws a decent sized
> monkey wrench into the httpd build. Then maybe we can connect the dots in the .dsw files
> and in makefile.win (which you have started sort of).
>
> Gregg
>
> On 3/14/2012 10:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 3/14/2012 2:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> In the attempts to keep the momentum going, I'd like to push for
>>> a httpd 2.4.2 release Real Soon Now.
>> Then this afternoon I'll propose a 'really small patch' around
>> 'the win32 issue' and ask folks who have had problems, and those who
>> have not, to test it out. It appears MSDN documentation was not our
>> friend and their directives were misplaced, and the patch should drop
>> some code (not used back in 2.2) which might be the underlying cause
>> of Steffan and crew's issues.
>>
>> We would probably hear back within the day, so windows folks would
>> be very happy with a T&R sometime Friday-Monday. I just can't recall
>> offhand if all the win32 quirks in apr were resolved in 1.4.6, or
>> a new T&R is still needed on that side?
>>
>
>
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
On 15 Mar 2012, at 1:06 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:

> Us Windows folk would be ecstatic! It is affecting a few noisy users, then there's the silent masses :)
> Not sure what APR quirks, refresh my memory.
> I'm +1 for a APU 1.4.2 also, crypto not building for static lib throws a decent sized monkey wrench into the httpd build. Then maybe we can connect the dots in the .dsw files and in makefile.win (which you have started sort of).

Happy to RM an apr-util release. Am I right in understanding the issues are fixed and we're good to go?

Regards,
Graham
--
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
On Mar 15, 2012, at 7:06 AM, Gregg Smith wrote:

> Bill,
>
> Us Windows folk would be ecstatic! It is affecting a few noisy users, then there's the silent masses :)
> Not sure what APR quirks, refresh my memory.
> I'm +1 for a APU 1.4.2 also, crypto not building for static lib throws a decent sized monkey wrench into the httpd build. Then maybe we can connect the dots in the .dsw files and in makefile.win (which you have started sort of).
>

+1 for APU 1.4.2 (adding APR to this thread)... I can RM if need be.
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
Bill, not that pages are not showing up, the only problem with
AcceptFilter data has been the AcceptEx error/becoming unresponsive. I
admit to never suggesting trying AcceptFilter connect. Of course, the
problem is on the https side so I never tell them to go to "none" for
https.

I leave mine at the default (data) for https, have a script that
monitors the error log and sends a graceful restart when it detects a
new AcceptEx error. I do not think I have ever recieved a blank/partial
page with the default.

If you have a patch, I'll be glad to patch 2.4 head and try it out.


On 3/15/2012 4:13 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Gregg, I believe these overrides are either not needed at all, or are
> not needed in specific cases, and have yet to determine which is the
> case that the users are experiencing.
>
> Is anyone complaining about AcceptFilter data or connection? If not,
> then these lines of code simply need to be dodged for AcceptFilter none.
>
> On 3/15/2012 6:06 AM, Gregg Smith wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> Us Windows folk would be ecstatic! It is affecting a few noisy users, then there's the
>> silent masses :)
>> Not sure what APR quirks, refresh my memory.
>> I'm +1 for a APU 1.4.2 also, crypto not building for static lib throws a decent sized
>> monkey wrench into the httpd build. Then maybe we can connect the dots in the .dsw files
>> and in makefile.win (which you have started sort of).
>>
>> Gregg
>>
>> On 3/14/2012 10:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2012 2:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> In the attempts to keep the momentum going, I'd like to push for
>>>> a httpd 2.4.2 release Real Soon Now.
>>> Then this afternoon I'll propose a 'really small patch' around
>>> 'the win32 issue' and ask folks who have had problems, and those who
>>> have not, to test it out. It appears MSDN documentation was not our
>>> friend and their directives were misplaced, and the patch should drop
>>> some code (not used back in 2.2) which might be the underlying cause
>>> of Steffan and crew's issues.
>>>
>>> We would probably hear back within the day, so windows folks would
>>> be very happy with a T&R sometime Friday-Monday. I just can't recall
>>> offhand if all the win32 quirks in apr were resolved in 1.4.6, or
>>> a new T&R is still needed on that side?
>>>
>>
>
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
Graham,

Current APU 1.4 head builds fine.
It looks like your fix for this is the only thing in changes.


On 3/15/2012 4:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2012, at 1:06 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
>
>> Us Windows folk would be ecstatic! It is affecting a few noisy users, then there's the silent masses :)
>> Not sure what APR quirks, refresh my memory.
>> I'm +1 for a APU 1.4.2 also, crypto not building for static lib throws a decent sized monkey wrench into the httpd build. Then maybe we can connect the dots in the .dsw files and in makefile.win (which you have started sort of).
> Happy to RM an apr-util release. Am I right in understanding the issues are fixed and we're good to go?
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
>
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
How does the week of April 2nd sound? This should provide enough time
for the proposed backports to get enough votes and to propose
the backports based on recent trunk improvements...

Sound like a plan? I volunteer to RM.

On Mar 14, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> In the attempts to keep the momentum going, I'd like to push for
> a httpd 2.4.2 release Real Soon Now.
>
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
On 25.03.2012 19:09, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> How does the week of April 2nd sound? This should provide enough time
> for the proposed backports to get enough votes and to propose
> the backports based on recent trunk improvements...
>
> Sound like a plan? I volunteer to RM.
>
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> In the attempts to keep the momentum going, I'd like to push for
>> a httpd 2.4.2 release Real Soon Now.

+1

Rainer
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
On 25 Mar 2012, at 7:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> How does the week of April 2nd sound? This should provide enough time
> for the proposed backports to get enough votes and to propose
> the backports based on recent trunk improvements...
>
> Sound like a plan? I volunteer to RM.

+1.

I've just T&R'ed apr-util v1.4.2, containing some compile time fixes for static builds. In theory, given no drama it should be ready for April 2nd.

Regards,
Graham
--
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
I have been trying to build trunk from "trunk" versions of apr and
apr-util. buildconf complains about not being able to find APR-util (or
apr-UTIL). In any case, caps are involved. Windows might not complain, but
UNIX does.

To test what you are testing - should I use apr and apr-util trunks, or is
it better "in all thinks" - i.e. including httpd-trunk builds to use the
released versions of apr, or their trunk versions. Reading the lists I see
many of you are involved in both projects. I just want to be in sync with
the ways you test for new releases.

Sincerely,
Michael

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Graham Leggett <minfrin@sharp.fm> wrote:

> On 25 Mar 2012, at 7:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > How does the week of April 2nd sound? This should provide enough time
> > for the proposed backports to get enough votes and to propose
> > the backports based on recent trunk improvements...
> >
> > Sound like a plan? I volunteer to RM.
>
> +1.
>
> I've just T&R'ed apr-util v1.4.2, containing some compile time fixes for
> static builds. In theory, given no drama it should be ready for April 2nd.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
>
>
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Michael Felt <mamfelt@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been trying to build trunk from "trunk" versions of apr and apr-util.
> buildconf complains about not being able to find APR-util (or apr-UTIL). In
> any case, caps are involved. Windows might not complain, but UNIX does.
>
> To test what you are testing - should I use apr and apr-util trunks, or is
> it better "in all thinks" - i.e. including httpd-trunk builds to use the
> released versions of apr, or their trunk versions. Reading the lists I see
> many of you are involved in both projects. I just want to be in sync with
> the ways you test for new releases.

use apr 1.4.x and apr-util 1.4.x with httpd trunk or httpd 2.4.x
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
On 26 Mar 2012, at 12:18 AM, Michael Felt wrote:

> I have been trying to build trunk from "trunk" versions of apr and apr-util. buildconf complains about not being able to find APR-util (or apr-UTIL). In any case, caps are involved. Windows might not complain, but UNIX does.

In theory, you should be able to get away with not calling buildconf at all, given that this command is run before the tarballs are created and it should all be functional from the outset. Or to put it another way, you only need to run buildconf if you checked the code out from svn, instead of trying to build from a tarball.

The ./configure script needs the base path of the apr and apr-util installations passed to it, something like this:

./configure [options] --with-apr=%{_prefix} --with-apr-util=%{_prefix}

where prefix is /opt/local (for you, as I recall).

Regards,
Graham
--
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
On 3/25/2012 5:18 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> I have been trying to build trunk from "trunk" versions of apr and apr-util. buildconf
> complains about not being able to find APR-util (or apr-UTIL). In any case, caps are
> involved. Windows might not complain, but UNIX does.

You make no sense. The trunk version of apr 2.0.0-dev includes all '-util'
functionality. In fact, there is no apr-util 'trunk' anymore.

What you might want for development are the current apr-util and apr 1.x
branches, 1.4.x are current, and 1.5.x are 'next' if we get that far.

But don't mix 2.0 apr with an apr-util at all. The merged into apr.
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
Thank you for the "compliment". Quite correct I am getting used to svn and
where all of you are.

For the record, I was able to package the httpd-2.4.x using the apr-1.4.6
package generally available together with the apr-util-1.4.2 tarball in

Tarballs/zipballs are at
> http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/autoconf-2.68+libtool-2.4.2/.
>

So, probably I am trying to mix the wrong version of apr with an ancient
apr-util.

Thank you all for the suggestions and corrections.

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:14 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wrowe@rowe-clan.net>wrote:

> On 3/25/2012 5:18 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> > I have been trying to build trunk from "trunk" versions of apr and
> apr-util. buildconf
> > complains about not being able to find APR-util (or apr-UTIL). In any
> case, caps are
> > involved. Windows might not complain, but UNIX does.
>
> You make no sense. The trunk version of apr 2.0.0-dev includes all '-util'
> functionality. In fact, there is no apr-util 'trunk' anymore.
>
> What you might want for development are the current apr-util and apr 1.x
> branches, 1.4.x are current, and 1.5.x are 'next' if we get that far.
>
> But don't mix 2.0 apr with an apr-util at all. The merged into apr.
>
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
A new expat 2.1.0 is available, like to see it also included in apr and test
with 2.4.2.

Bill was waiting for it:

From: "William A. Rowe Jr."
Date: 2012-03-08 20:27:25
Nor am I (aware of issues), however expat 2.0.1 has vulnerabilites which
are corrected in the expat project's svn but not in a 'release' (we have
a patched flavor of 1.9.5 in apr project's repository). We won't ship the
apr 1.4.6 +patch, but would wait for apr to release again. OpenSSL is
about to deliver 1.0.1 (and then deprecate 1.0.0 long before we finish any
httpd 2.4 cycle) so waiting the additional week or few for the brand new
openssl 1.0.1 and a new apr tag (and a new expat 2.0.2 would really be
lovely).

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Jagielski
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:36 PM Newsgroups: gmane.comp.apache.devel
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: A push for 2.4.2

In the attempts to keep the momentum going, I'd like to push for
a httpd 2.4.2 release Real Soon Now.
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
On 3/27/2012 7:22 AM, Steffen wrote:
> A new expat 2.1.0 is available, like to see it also included in apr and test
> with 2.4.2.

Excellent news! Of course OpenSSL 1.0.1 has since been released. I'm likely
to get to a quick test build Thursday, so that if there is breakage we can do
something about it, before Jim's T&R next week.
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
On 25 Mar 2012, at 7:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> How does the week of April 2nd sound? This should provide enough time
> for the proposed backports to get enough votes and to propose
> the backports based on recent trunk improvements...
>
> Sound like a plan? I volunteer to RM.

Quick reminder that apr-util v1.4.2 is up for vote, and would fix some issues for httpd people. It would be good to get the apr-util vote concluded before httpd v2.4.2 goes out the door.

Regards,
Graham
--
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
Looking for expat I see both in svn for apr-util as well as in the tarball
released for public viewing to following info in the
<projectname>/xml/expat/README file:

Expat, Release 1.95.7

This is Expat, a C library for parsing XML, written by James Clark.
Expat is a stream-oriented XML parser. This means that you register
...

Does not look like the new version is being used by apr-util. Or am I still
"not making any sense"? ;)

In other words, where should I find the new version of expat to test
(build) against?

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Graham Leggett <minfrin@sharp.fm> wrote:

> On 25 Mar 2012, at 7:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > How does the week of April 2nd sound? This should provide enough time
> > for the proposed backports to get enough votes and to propose
> > the backports based on recent trunk improvements...
> >
> > Sound like a plan? I volunteer to RM.
>
> Quick reminder that apr-util v1.4.2 is up for vote, and would fix some
> issues for httpd people. It would be good to get the apr-util vote
> concluded before httpd v2.4.2 goes out the door.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
>
>
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
p.s. just checked the apr-util-2.5.x/xml/expat/README - and it is the same
README file.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Michael Felt <mamfelt@gmail.com> wrote:

> Looking for expat I see both in svn for apr-util as well as in the tarball
> released for public viewing to following info in the
> <projectname>/xml/expat/README file:
>
> Expat, Release 1.95.7
>
> This is Expat, a C library for parsing XML, written by James Clark.
> Expat is a stream-oriented XML parser. This means that you register
> ...
>
> Does not look like the new version is being used by apr-util. Or am I
> still "not making any sense"? ;)
>
> In other words, where should I find the new version of expat to test
> (build) against?
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Graham Leggett <minfrin@sharp.fm> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Mar 2012, at 7:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> > How does the week of April 2nd sound? This should provide enough time
>> > for the proposed backports to get enough votes and to propose
>> > the backports based on recent trunk improvements...
>> >
>> > Sound like a plan? I volunteer to RM.
>>
>> Quick reminder that apr-util v1.4.2 is up for vote, and would fix some
>> issues for httpd people. It would be good to get the apr-util vote
>> concluded before httpd v2.4.2 goes out the door.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Graham
>> --
>>
>>
>
Re: A push for 2.4.2 [ In reply to ]
You can choose whatever external expat you like when you configure apr-util.

1 2  View All