Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 6784 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2001 20:23:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 6752 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 20:23:53 -0000 Message-ID: <85063BBE668FD411944400D0B744267A481A26@AUSMAIL> From: "Gonyou, Austin" To: "'new-httpd@apache.org'" Subject: RE: httpd-2.0.18 build error Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:23:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N I recompiled again with no ssl support same error. Looks like htpasswd.c is in need of something it doesn't have. I'm not sure why it's upset. Any help is appreciated. -- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA Coremetrics, Inc. Phone: 512-796-9023 email: austin@coremetrics.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Gonyou, Austin [mailto:austin@coremetrics.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 2:48 PM > To: 'new-httpd@apache.org' > Subject: httpd-2.0.18 build error > > > Looks like this is caused by configuring with ssl support. > Any ideas here, > aside from not compiling with SSL? > > --------------begin error-------------- > /bin/sh > /home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/srclib/apr/libtool --silent > --mode=link gcc -g -O2 -pthread -D_REENTRANT > -DAP_HAVE_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZER -I. > -I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/os/unix > -I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/server/mpm/threaded > -I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/modules/http > -I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/include > -I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/srclib/apr/include > -I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/srclib/apr-util/include > -I../openssl-0.9.6//include -export-dynamic -o htpasswd htpasswd.lo > ../srclib/apr-util/libaprutil.la ../srclib/apr/libapr.la > -lnsl -lnsl -lm > -lcrypt -lnsl -ldl -lssl -lcrypto > /home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/srclib/apr-util/xml/expat > /lib/libexpat. > la > htpasswd.o: In function `main': > /home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/support/htpasswd.c:599: > the use of > `tmpnam' is dangerous, better use `mkstemp' > htpasswd.o: In function `mkrecord': > /home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/support/htpasswd.c:235: undefined > reference to `apr_sha1_base64' > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status > make[2]: *** [htpasswd] Error 1 > make[2]: Leaving directory `/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/support' > make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/support' > make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 > --------------end error------------------- > > -- > Austin Gonyou > Systems Architect, CCNA > Coremetrics, Inc. > Phone: 512-796-9023 > email: austin@coremetrics.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gonyou, Austin [mailto:austin@coremetrics.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 2:01 PM > > To: 'new-httpd@apache.org' > > Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ? > > > > > > Aye Aye. They are up. > > > > -- > > Austin Gonyou > > Systems Architect, CCNA > > Coremetrics, Inc. > > Phone: 512-796-9023 > > email: austin@coremetrics.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:bill@wstoddard.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:19 PM > > > To: new-httpd@apache.org > > > Subject: Re: Apache 2.0 final ? > > > > > > > > > Check now. They are up. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Gonyou, Austin" > > > To: > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 11:59 AM > > > Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ? > > > > > > > > > > Where the heck is 2.0.18 for download? CVS? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Austin Gonyou > > > > Systems Architect, CCNA > > > > Coremetrics, Inc. > > > > Phone: 512-796-9023 > > > > email: austin@coremetrics.com > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Ian Holsman [mailto:IanH@cnet.com] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 10:32 AM > > > > > To: 'new-httpd@apache.org' > > > > > Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > > we are already devleoping custom modules for 2.0, > > > > > ok.. sometimes we get a bit burnt and have to go and change > > > > > some function names when something gets pulled into the APR, > > > > > > > > > > but in my experience the change is to a function name, > > the concept > > > > > stays the same, and is a low-risk change. > > > > > > > > > > I sugest you grab the 2.0.19 release (when it gets > > pushed to BETA) > > > > > and use that as a baseline, subscribe to the CVS > > mailing list and > > > > > take a note when you see comments like 'changed function > > > > > name' or 'moved to APR' > > > > > > > > > > ..Ian > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Padwa, Daniel [mailto:daniel.padwa@gs.com] > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 6:42 AM > > > > > > To: 'new-httpd@apache.org' > > > > > > Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think people like him are asking: when is the fiddling > > > > > > done, and people > > > > > > > have a program they can start to incorporate into their > > > > > > operating system > > > > > > > releases, deploy for production customers, etc? While > > > > > > we're still working > > > > > > > on low-level issues like pools/sms in APR and > fixing other > > > > > > big performance > > > > > > > issues, we're not there yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > Another spin on the same question: when do the core > > > > > > developers (you know who > > > > > > you are) think that the internal APIs have > stabilized enough > > > > > > so that effort > > > > > > expended porting home-grown modules won't need to be thrown > > > > > > away when 2.0 > > > > > > settles down? > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of us (I don't have enough data to say "many") > can't put > > > > > > the server > > > > > > through heavy burn-in without local modules, and can't > > > > > > justify porting those > > > > > > to a not-settled set of core APIs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Or did I miss the announcement that we had passed > this point? > > > > > > It doesn't > > > > > > need to be an unbreakable promise, just some guidance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >