httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>
Subject Re: 1.2b1 status
Date Sat, 23 Nov 1996 17:21:32 GMT
> 
> Randy, are you still up for rolling the tarball on Sunday ? The choice
> of when is up to you.

Yes. I'll do it Sunday CST.

> Once we have that, those of us not using CVS should grab it and everyone
> should install and test it (as much as you can). There are still outstanding
> bugs but it's useful if we all start from the same source for the last week
> of pre-beta testing and reporting.
> 
> 
> What will Sunaday's version be called ?. Does it matter ?   1.2b0 ?

1.2b1

I figure that if it flies (as beta quality) we release it? No?



> Features:
> 	-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 	Sameer has offered a patch to do unbuffered CGI.
> 	Ben has said he supports the feature.
> 
> 	-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 
> 	searching domains
> 
> 	lots of arguments on both sides. Brian suggests putting it in
> 	http://www.apache.org/dist/contrib/patches/1.2/   ... seems like
> 	the only option now.
> 
> 	-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> 	Jason:
> 	  Whoops.  I missed the feature freeze...
> 	  I had an update for support/suexec.c
> 	  The changes were minor, and we *could* run with the current version.
> 	  However, here are the changes that were made:
> 
> 	   * Version 0.1.0 - Jason A. Dour
> 	   *    First beta.  Removed HAVE_RLIMIT and related rlimit code
> 	   * now that the server handles the functionality.  Moved user-
> 	   * defined code to suexec.h.  Added "DON'T EDIT" warning in code.
> 	   * No more "security by obscurity"...comments added at each step.
> 
> 	  For the most part, the biggest change was the *removal* of 
> 	  HAVE_RLIMIT.  Other than that, it's mostly comments and a
> 	  "DON'T EDIT" warning.  The user-definable variables have been
> 	  moved to suexec.h to keep people from editing the code.  IMHO,
> 	  suexec.c should not be writable by default in the tarball...
> 
> 	  Are there enough votes out there to commit these changes?
> 
> Bugs:
> 	-=-=-=-=--=-
> 	The logic of timeouts seems to be somewhat screwed - keepalive
> 	timeouts may be used at the wrong moments, it seems to me.  [Ben]
> 
> 	-=-=-==-=-=-
> 
> 	HPUX 10.x compile fix patch.
> 
> 	-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 
> bug?	"Apache logs (error_log) 'no acceptable variant' (406)) twice".
> 
> 	Sorry the initial claim is wrong in general, not sure if this is
> 	a bug or a feature [robh] 
> 
> 	DirectoryIndex index.html index.forward
> 	Multiviews switched on
> 	files: index.html.en index.html.de index.forward
> 	browser set to accept say "fr".
> 
> 	before index.forward (an .asis file) internally redirects the
> 	request to index.html a 'no acceptable variant' is logged,
> 	it is logged again when index.html fails to find an
> 	acceptable language.
> 
> 	So what is apache looking for before the internal redirect from the
> 	.asis ?   If I remove index.forward from the equation, I get 1
> 	logged message plus a directory listing and a 200 response (yuck)
> 
> 	-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> 	From: Roy
> 	The problem is that a request on /dir/ is internally redirected to
> 	/dir/index.html, which properly results in a 304 Not Modified.  However,
> 	the r->status is not updated to reflect new->status (and anything else
> 	that might need to be promoted).
> 
> 	we're still waiting for someone to speak up on whether it's a
> 	major problem or not.  I don't know that area of the code well
> 	enough, though I can't say that promotion of error code from
> 	sub-redirects has been a problem for me personally.  Again, flag
> 	it as a known bug is probably the best we can
> 	do here, unless someone wants to speak up.  [brian]
> 
> 	-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 
> 	1.2-dev still has this bug in it.  get_client_block needs to
> 	check for the -1 error case from the call to bread().
> 
> 	patch offered. positive feedback so far.
> 
> 	-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> 	Roy's claim of CGI schitzo behavior and improper dealing with
> 	CONTENT_LENGTH.  This is a showstopper in my opinion until more
> 	voices are heard.
> 
> 	Roy offers 2 options:
> 	  a) Assume it is only for old scripts.  This requires changing mod_cgi
> 	    so that it rejects anything without a Content-Length (411 Length
> 	    Required) even if it is chunked, or at least anything that cannot
>             be read into a single buffer before execing the script.
> 
>           b) Assume it is for new scripts and that old scripts will just never
> 	    see the HTTP/1.1 input (after all, no sane client would chunk an
> 	    x-www-url-encoded form).  This requires changing get_client_block
> 	    so that it passes the chunk size and footer to the script. 
> 
> 	Jim voted for (b)
> 	Ed  voted for (a) 
> 
> 	Alexei says it's supposed to be this way.
> 
> 	+ other comments.
> 
> 
> Showstoppers (perhaps):
> 
> 	Roy's redirect bug, though he seems to be having 2nd thoughts now,
> 	probably not a showstopper.
> 
> 	?  get_client_block needs to check for the -1  (sounds nasty)
> 
> 	CGI dealing & CONTENT_LENGTH
> 
> 
> TODO:
> 
> 	now
> 		Prepare more documentation.
> 		Resolve all outstanding bugs (see above).
> 	Nov 24	Create last pre-beta tarball (Randy?)
> 		Test, test, test.
> 		Report back with positive as well as negative comments.
> 	Nov 30	Create 1.2b1 tarball.
> 	  "	Update CVS to reflect 1.2b1 release.
> 	Dec  1  Release 1.2b1.
> 	  "	Put documentation online if there is any.
> 	  "	Hand 1.2 management over.
> 




Mime
View raw message