httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
Date Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:00:02 GMT


On 08/11/2007 01:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
> Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
> as expected at:
> 
>     http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
> 
> This vote will run through August 14, 2007...
> 
>   +/-1   (x == +1)
> 
>   [  ]    apache_1.3.28
>   [  ]    httpd-2.0.60
>   [  ]    httpd-2.2.5
> 

-1 from me on 2.0.60 as the test framework revealed regressions compared to 2.0.59:

2.0.59:

Failed Test                Stat Wstat Total Fail  Failed  List of Failed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t/modules/cgi.t                          58   21  36.21%  14 16 32 34 36 38 40
                                                          42 44 46-49 51-58
t/security/CVE-2006-5752.t                2    1  50.00%  2
t/ssl/basicauth.t                         3    2  66.67%  2-3
t/ssl/env.t                              30   15  50.00%  16-30
t/ssl/pr12355.t                          10    8  80.00%  1-8
t/ssl/proxy.t                           172  118  68.60%  1-59 114-172
t/ssl/require.t                           5    2  40.00%  2 5
t/ssl/varlookup.t                        72   72 100.00%  1-72
t/ssl/verify.t                            3    1  33.33%  2
 (1 subtest UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 13 tests and 28 subtests skipped.
Failed 9/77 test scripts, 88.31% okay. 240/2817 subtests failed, 91.48% okay.

2.0.60:

Failed Test          Stat Wstat Total Fail  Failed  List of Failed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t/modules/access.t                408   31   7.60%  4 20-21 24 26 28 30 38 55
                                                    72 89 106-107 123-124 141
                                                    154 168 170 175 192 209 226
                                                    277 290 304 306 311 328 345
                                                    362
t/modules/cgi.t                    58   21  36.21%  14 16 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
                                                    46-49 51-58
t/modules/setenvif.t              111   18  16.22%  7-9 13-15 19-21 25-27 31-33
                                                    37-39
t/ssl/basicauth.t                   3    2  66.67%  2-3
t/ssl/env.t                        30   15  50.00%  16-30
t/ssl/proxy.t                     172  118  68.60%  1-59 114-172
t/ssl/require.t                     5    2  40.00%  2 5
t/ssl/varlookup.t                  72   72 100.00%  1-72
t/ssl/verify.t                      3    1  33.33%  2
 (1 subtest UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 13 tests and 28 subtests skipped.
Failed 9/77 test scripts, 88.31% okay. 280/2817 subtests failed, 90.06% okay.


These regression are caused by an apr problem. 2.0.59 is shipped with apr 0.9.12 whereas
2.0.60 is shipped with apr 0.9.14.

The regressions are caused by r442526 and r443264 which are backports of r442135 and r443262
from apr trunk..
These revisions change apr_socket_accept in network_io/unix/sockets.c.
Why does this not happen with apr trunk / 1.2.x?

On apr trunk we have r447894. Backporting this patch to 0.9.14 fixes the regressions.
On apr 1.2.x the backports of r442135 and r443262 have been reverted in r473681.

So I guess we either have to ship 2.0.x with an older release of apr 0.9.x or we have to
wait for a new release of apr 0.9.x that fixes this problem.

Regards

RĂ¼diger



Mime
View raw message