From dev-return-91281-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@httpd.apache.org Sun Feb 25 21:17:48 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id B974718064C for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 21:17:47 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 53102 invoked by uid 500); 25 Feb 2018 20:17:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 53092 invoked by uid 99); 25 Feb 2018 20:17:46 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:17:46 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id DE616C09E6 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:17:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.98 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.98 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93HHAuFx9lW1 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:17:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eastrmfepo203.cox.net (eastrmfepo203.cox.net [68.230.241.218]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id 8050C5F5FA for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:17:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eastrmimpo209.cox.net ([68.230.241.224]) by eastrmfepo203.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.28 201-2260-151-171-20160122) with ESMTP id <20180225201740.ULRF4081.eastrmfepo203.cox.net@eastrmimpo209.cox.net> for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 15:17:40 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.5] ([98.176.34.113]) by eastrmimpo209.cox.net with cox id F8Hf1x0052STVfm018HgJo; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 15:17:40 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=BoXt+cf5 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=8xCO7h6kmYZdHn5tUOQhsw==:117 a=8xCO7h6kmYZdHn5tUOQhsw==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=iAXWfX1Q_iMA:10 a=rdg3_GxQAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=mV9VRH-2AAAA:8 a=X-QBuKCoAAAA:8 a=OLccffqqKR6t0AuP4bMA:9 a=L03L2QfmqWoA:10 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=YSKlvq8GkVsA:10 a=4bfGIIMrVqvzAeZ94R2q:22 a=vbxwTe1tunHIfGfxEBYx:22 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; auth=pass (PLAIN) smtp.auth=port88gs@cox.net Subject: Re: Current branche 2.4.30-dev issues To: dev@httpd.apache.org References: <5a89af77.11b0.1240.42d5@land10.nl> From: Gregg Smith Message-ID: <9b26cf4f-7812-ac63-ad9c-348bb07a25c3@gknw.net> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 12:17:38 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2/23/2018 10:24 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Steffen wrote: >> >>> Op 18 feb. 2018 om 17:57 heeft Eric Covener het volgende geschreven: >>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Steffen wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sunday 18/02/2018 at 17:39, Eric Covener wrote: >>>> >>>> -- not sure, mod_md; should curl and jansson be added to notice/license >>>> files ? >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think either is contained in mod_md, so I don't think they >>>> should be referenced in the NOTICES: >>>> >>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice >>>> ``` >>>> Dependencies which are not included in the distribution MUST NOT be >>>> added to LICENSE and NOTICE. As far as LICENSE and NOTICE are >>>> concerned, only bundled bits matter. >>>> ``` >>>> On Win the curl and jansson dependencies are included in the binary >>>> distribution. >>>> >>>> >>>> We can't reflect what might be added in a third-party binary >>>> distribution to the NOTICES file in httpd SVN. I think the obligation >>>> is on whoever creates the binary distribution to enumerate what's in >>>> it. That's what the ASF policy (same page) would be, at least. >>>> >>>> Till now Makefile.win in SVN contains the text,for example see below. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> !IF EXIST("srclib\nghttp2") >>>> type << >> "$(INSTDIR)\NOTICE.txt" >>>> >>>> This binary distribution of mod_http2.so includes nghttp2 C library written >>>> by Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa. For complete information, visit nghttp2's web site >>>> at https://nghttp2.org/ >>>> << >>>> -awk -f <> "$(INSTDIR)\LICENSE.txt" >>>> BEGIN { >>>> print ""; >>>> print "For the mod_http2 component:"; >>>> print ""; >>>> while ( getline > 0 ) { >>>> print $$0; >>>> } >>>> exit 0; >>>> } >>>> << >>>> !ENDIF >>>> >>> >>> Are you asking if it would be appropriate to do the same thing for the >>> other dependencies? If they're built the same way it would seem >>> reasonable. I do not personally think it's necessary (showstopper) >>> for a release. It looks like a convenience for someone who already >>> copied prereqs into srclib/. Maybe others feel differently? >> >> Bill and others, what do you think ? > > I am getting to snapshot testing in about an hour here on Windows, > I'm just finishing up my review of 2.4.30 on Linux. I'll have more to > offer, then. > >> I think to be in line with other deps (like brotli, http2...) we should add it to makefile.win, which copies to notice/license. > > These are all legacies of having a command line build schema > for httpd-project distributed windows binaries, which handled the > vast amount of target tree preparation by presuming each of these > components exist within srcdir/. That's an extremely inflexible > mechanism that must be cleaned up in trunk. So basically what your saying is that if I put any time into getting trunk building again (have already done with exception of apreq & now proxy_uwsgi), it's all for not and just a waste of my time because you're going to toss it all out in the end. Am I understanding this correctly? > > I'm unclear of your build process, whether you are using the SLN > schema of Makefile.win? Or using the GUI results and then just > using the nmake install step of Makefile.win? InstallBin is just nmake _install, so there's no difference. # PROP Cmd_Line "NMAKE /f makefile.win INSTDIR="\Apache24" SHORT=R LONG=Release _install" And since nmake _install has a dependency to nmake _build(r/d) (like InstallBin to BuildBin), it would just builds everything again if you used nmake install(r/d) after building with the GUI. > > In any case, for those components which the Makefile.win does > physically copy into the target tree, it ought to also be appending > the NOTICE. Where it does not take responsibility to move the > third party lib, it should not extend the NOTICE. Does that seem > rational? > > We (httpd source tree maintainers) should be out of the business > of handling 'make install' steps for third party packages. As a > distributor, I'm sure you and others appreciate the current > convenience, but it involves generally knowing which rev level > each third party package is at, and distributors can and will > disagree on which components and versions should be linked > into their own build of httpd for their purposes. > > I'm happy to collaborate on such helpful scripts and utilities but > they belong out of the /httpd/httpd/branches/rev/ tree so that they > don't interfere with the release cycle of the primary source project. >