httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steffen" <i...@apachelounge.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Date Sat, 08 Sep 2007 14:10:49 GMT
Several 2rd-party modules (mod_fcgid, mod_fastcgi, mod_perl, mod_watch etc.) 
are given issues with 2.2.6 on Windows.

Steffen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jaguNET.com>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 22:20
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate 
tarballs for review


> Ummm hrmm:
>
>   "A hurry backport is causing this and there is hardly
>    tested in real live. Hopefully ASF comes with a patch soon. "
>
> So you know what's causing this? Please point out the exact
> "hurry backport" so we can look there.
>
> And again, WHAT OTHER 3rd party modules are having problems??
> Can you provide ANY FURTHER information other than cryptic "its
> not working" messages followed by "ASF hates Windows users"
> comments??
>
> If we *knew* what the problems were, we'd try like heck to fix
> 'em. I know Bill looked hard and long, but had no luck,
> mostly because the amount of real concrete data was woefully
> lacking.
>
> On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Steffen wrote:
>
>> Better we stop this thread.
>>
>> See the post at: http://www.apachelounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php? p=8691 
>> , please do not reply to that post.
>>
>> Steffen
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jaguNET.com>
>> To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 21:47
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release  candidate 
>> tarballs for review
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Steffen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm assuming the "we" is you, right?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not just me. We are a team and of course the users. Just  as  an 
>>>> example
>>>> the other post from me here which is a report from an other 
>>>> webmaster. I
>>>> report here test results from the Apache Windows Community from  the 
>>>> Apache
>>>> Lounge,  mostly I receive them by mail.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You said that "we" need to:
>>>   "advise the users not to use 2.2.6 because is not compatible  with 
>>> some mods"
>>>
>>> which, afaik, is not the case. You reported issues with mod_fcgid, 
>>> which
>>> may be true, but that hasn't been confirmed by anyone else, nor do
>>> I see reports to support the "some mods" statement as well.
>>> Unless, of course, the cryptic phrase "An other report"
>>> actually means "The below is a report from someone else
>>> who is also seeing an issue" instead of "Oh, by the way, I
>>> also tried this personally and I see that mod_cgi is working OK
>>> for me..."...
>>>
>>> With all this being the case, I can't see holding up a release nor
>>> can I see us ("us" being the ASF) making some blanket statement that
>>> Win32 users should not use 2.2.6 because it is not compatible with
>>> some mods... If we had some more supporting data for that, then
>>> maybe...
>>>
>>>> Maybe we have to patch 2.2.6 to get it error-free.
>>>
>>> Well, there is the patches directory that, if we discover
>>> a bug, allows people to download the patch and rebuild. Of
>>> course, this all means tracking down and discovering the
>>> bug with some detailed debugging info rather than a "it
>>> doesn't work" :)
>>>
>>
>
> 


Mime
View raw message