Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <46AFFCE1.4020605@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:24:17 -0500
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "dev@httpd.apache.org" <dev@httpd.apache.org>
CC: "Hossein Kholdinasab (Siemens Business Services Inc)"
 <a-hossk@microsoft.com>,
 Hank Janssen <hjanssen@microsoft.com>,
 Windows Server ISV Engagement <aesrvisv@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: x64/x86: Apache http server 2.0.55 is getting installed with
 some errors, server does not start after installation
References: 
 <4B7EFE4FD8DE5B47B27D497DC5BF37A02DA62B306B@NA-EXMSG-C142.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
 <631D8BF76E4517459F10F4A45CFA24C825B4ACB974@NA-EXMSG-C120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <631D8BF76E4517459F10F4A45CFA24C825B4ACB974@NA-EXMSG-C120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hossein Kholdinasab (Siemens Business Services Inc) wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> This is a follow up on the email I sent on June 6^th regarding a support
> status for Apache application on Windows LHS, could you please review
> this request and if necessary for ward it to an appropriate group
> responsible for this application and have contact me as soon as possible?

That would be dev@httpd.apache.org.  Please don't email security@httpd
without an undisclosed security vulnerability to report.

> As Microsoft is preparing to release Windows Longhorn Server in the near
> future, we would like to know your plans for supporting *x64/x86: Apache
> http server 2.0.55* on Windows Longhorn Server.

You might be unfamiliar with the concept of open-source development.
There are companies, including my employer, Covalent Technologies, who
do stand behind this particular project with warranties and indemnities,
but if you read the license to httpd;

  http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt

you quickly realize there is no warranty by the ASF, so assurances of
compatibility with any particular operating system are essentially the
desires of some specific developers' effort to make it work for that
platform.

That said, it happens to be on my plate, and that of my employer, to have
Longhorn support for **Apache 2.2**.  Apache 2.0 is a legacy version.  So
I personally have no particular desire to refine it's 64-bit support, we
cannot do so and still maintain strict binary compatibility.

Apache 2.2 was carefully reviewed for 64-bit'tedness issues, and that's the
very earliest version that users on Win32 should feel confident in proper
64-bit build target operation.  This is because most modern OS's deployed
either 64LP or 64ILP semantics, very few (one of which is Windows) deployed
a simplistic 64P architecture.

> 1. What are Apache plans to support the application on
> Longhorn server?

Apache doesn't 'support' httpd users, c.f. warranty.  That said, the focus
is on 2.2 releases, particularly the next two releases, and a few of us
have interest in making this happen.

> a.      Will the currently shipping version of the application be
> supported as-is?

Ha.  We don't ship 64bit builds of Apache 2.0, we are unlikely to for the
reasons I detailed above.  We don't ship 64 bit builds of Apache 2.2, but
we are likely to in the near future.  The current 2.2 and 2.0 32-bit builds
essentially work on Vista, therefore presumably Longhorn, but users have
encountered installation problems on Vista, and until the *coming* future
release, the ApacheMonitor tool did not honor Vista as a usable platform
(Apache httpd server didn't care one way or the other.)

> b.      Will the current version be updated with a patch or service
> pack?  (Implies that the current version must install on LHS)

When a version is done, it's done.  There will be no 2.0.55 changes ever.
The next 2.0 flavor is 2.0.60 to be released, the next 2.2 flavor would
likely be 2.2.5.  Each would have a working ApacheMonitor utility, no
comment on a schedule of MSI deployment changes.

> c.      Will a new version be released?

Well, I would be quite shocked if the httpd project closed its doors
this decade.

> 2.       If Longhorn Server plans are not defined, when will they be?

There is never an "ASF" plan for specific platforms, it is the whim of
specific developers, and tangentially and sometimes their employers or
clients interests that define what changes next.

> 3.       If a new version or patch is being produced for Longhorn Server:
> 
> a.      When will a beta be available?

The source code is available today.

  http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi

Patches to address Longhorn and Vista specific issues are welcome.  Those
corrections to the srclib/apr[-util|-iconv] trees should be address to the
APR project, dev@apr.apache.org.  Patches to other pieces can be addressed
to the dev@httpd list.

> b.      When will it be released?

There is no release schedule at httpd project.

> 4.       If the current version is to be supported as-is, does Apache
> want Microsoft to apply compatibility shims to fix problems when possible?

The biggest issue we have encountered to-date is with the MSI installer.
We deploy a group configuration templates into the temp directory, and then
run an awk script which places the resulting, finished configuration files
into \Program Files\Apache Software Foundation\Apache2.2\conf\.  It appears
that the MSI behavior changes since Windows Vista (and presumably Longhorn)
do not permit the installer write permission for the installer-user.  We will
need to look at the perms of that conf\ directory and accomodate.

Other incompatibilites should be addressed by the APR project (dev@apr) which
handles all of the platform-by-platform quirks and incompatibilities.  At the
present time, we don't anticipate any.  We do anticipate that, at some point,
Server 2003/Longhorn features will begin to be introduced into APR to support
more optimized behavior (an example would be DisconnectSocket to allow us to
reuse an established socket, introduced in Server 2003.)

> 5.       Our engineers will be diagnosing failures found during testing
> and beta.  We need to have a technical contact at Apache who can connect
> our engineers with the right technical contacts for the product.

Well, as I say there isn't a designated individual.  I'm one of three or
four regular contributors who look at the Windows platform.  There are two
resources; reporting issues here, to dev@httpd.apache.org, or instead to
file a bugzilla incident at http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/

I already confirmed that Windows Server 2008/Longhorn is listed by bugzilla,
although if the bug dates to, for example, Vista, then it should be marked
as a Vista bug.

> If you would like to be included in the Vista Server Beta program, I’ll
> be happy to nominate you to receive the invitation to be included in the
> Windows Vista server beta program

Fortunately, I personally am sufficiently plugged in through my various MSDN
participation.  Others might not be so lucky, if they are interested, I would
guess they could contact you directly with their apache.org email address?

> Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. If you prefer,
> we can set up a conference call so this information can be discussed at
> length.

I forwarded your initial inquiry to Hank Janssen who is working on Open
Source collaboration and community issues (he introduced himself to the
Apache-folk at ApacheCon Europe).  I had hoped he might offer you a bit
of insight into the differences between open source projects and the
typical commercial enterprise you might encounter in the day to day
application compatibility testing sphere.  I'm sure he would be happy to
help you better understand the Open Source landscape.

That said, if you are interested, the following page provides a good
introduction to the concept of how Open Source comes together, especially
at the ASF, but generally applicable at other projects.

  http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html