[gentoo-dev] apache2 default for 2006.0

[gentoo-dev] apache2 default for 2006.0

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 533 bytes --]

I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile.  This would
not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it by default.
With apache being such a popular package, having it fail from a default
stage3 installation reflects poorly on us all.  If I haven't heard any
good objections by November 30th, I'll make the change.  This will *not*
be retroactive to any previous release profiles.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] apache2 default for 2006.0

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1020 bytes --]

Hi,

On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 09:16 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile.  This would
> not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it by default.
> With apache being such a popular package, having it fail from a default
> stage3 installation reflects poorly on us all.  If I haven't heard any
> good objections by November 30th, I'll make the change.  This will *not*
> be retroactive to any previous release profiles.

I must be missing something.  How is adding the apache2 USE flag the
right solution to this problem with users trying to install apache v1?

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                         stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                                  http://www.gentoo.org/
                                              http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/

GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] apache2 default for 2006.0

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2027 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 23:19 +0000, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 09:16 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile.  This would
> > not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it by default.
> > With apache being such a popular package, having it fail from a default
> > stage3 installation reflects poorly on us all.  If I haven't heard any
> > good objections by November 30th, I'll make the change.  This will *not*
> > be retroactive to any previous release profiles.
> 
> I must be missing something.  How is adding the apache2 USE flag the
> right solution to this problem with users trying to install apache v1?

*sigh*

"This would not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it
by default."

Did I ever even imply that this would resolve problems with users trying
to install apache v1?  Di I ever say that this was a solution for them
in any way?  Did I not also mention that this would *not* be
retroactive?

Here's the deal.  We have a new user that installs Gentoo.  After
installing Gentoo, he tries to "emerge nagios" and it dies on building
apache over a bug that has been known for some time and still isn't
resolved.  How exactly does that make us look?  How exactly does that
make Release Engineering look when a "default install" cannot even
install apache properly?  APACHE!!!  Whether we are responsible for
apache or not, we *are* responsible for the release.  Having things
completely broken in the default install is *not* acceptable.  The bug
was reported in June and while there has been some action in the bug, no
fix has been issued.  Again, this is *not* acceptable.  Now, because of
this, it is my determination that we have a serious problem that *will*
affect the 2006.0 release, and I am trying to do something proactive to
prevent it.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] apache2 default for 2006.0

[Michael Stewart (vericgar)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 995 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile.  This would
> not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it by default.
> With apache being such a popular package, having it fail from a default
> stage3 installation reflects poorly on us all.  If I haven't heard any
> good objections by November 30th, I'll make the change.  This will *not*
> be retroactive to any previous release profiles.
> 

Sorry about the late reply.

I've been working on setting up a UML today so I could better test and
fix that bug (honestly, apache-1.3 is a mess). Now that I have the UML
set up, it shouldn't take me too long to get that bug fixed.

As fas as adding apache2 to the 2006.0 profile - no objections here, and
in fact I'd prefer it that way.

-- 
Michael Stewart                                     vericgar@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                        http://dev.gentoo.org/~vericgar

GnuPG Key ID 0x08614788 available on http://pgp.mit.edu
--

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] apache2 default for 2006.0

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1285 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 16:34 -0800, Michael Stewart (vericgar) wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile.  This would
> > not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it by default.
> > With apache being such a popular package, having it fail from a default
> > stage3 installation reflects poorly on us all.  If I haven't heard any
> > good objections by November 30th, I'll make the change.  This will *not*
> > be retroactive to any previous release profiles.
> > 
> 
> Sorry about the late reply.
> 
> I've been working on setting up a UML today so I could better test and
> fix that bug (honestly, apache-1.3 is a mess). Now that I have the UML
> set up, it shouldn't take me too long to get that bug fixed.
> 
> As fas as adding apache2 to the 2006.0 profile - no objections here, and
> in fact I'd prefer it that way.

Cool.  I was really hoping for a positive nod from the apache team.  =]

I've been testing it in my tinderbox runs, and it really does keep the
bug from showing itself.  It doesn't resolve the issue, but it does keep
people from hitting it by default.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] apache2 default for 2006.0

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1219 bytes --]

On Wednesday 30 November 2005 01:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 23:19 +0000, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 09:16 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile.  This
> > > would not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it
> > > by default. With apache being such a popular package, having it
> > > fail from a default stage3 installation reflects poorly on us all. 
> > > If I haven't heard any good objections by November 30th, I'll make
> > > the change.  This will *not* be retroactive to any previous release
> > > profiles.
> >
> > I must be missing something.  How is adding the apache2 USE flag the
> > right solution to this problem with users trying to install apache
> > v1?
>
> *sigh*
>
> "This would not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting
> it by default."

Why not fix the bug by adding this line to the compile stage of apache:
'CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -I/usr/include/gdbm"'

This works and even without pulling in an extra dependency on db-1

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] apache2 default for 2006.0

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1399 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 12:53 +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 November 2005 01:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 23:19 +0000, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 09:16 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile.  This
> > > > would not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it
> > > > by default. With apache being such a popular package, having it
> > > > fail from a default stage3 installation reflects poorly on us all. 
> > > > If I haven't heard any good objections by November 30th, I'll make
> > > > the change.  This will *not* be retroactive to any previous release
> > > > profiles.
> > >
> > > I must be missing something.  How is adding the apache2 USE flag the
> > > right solution to this problem with users trying to install apache
> > > v1?
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
> > "This would not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting
> > it by default."
> 
> Why not fix the bug by adding this line to the compile stage of apache:
> 'CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -I/usr/include/gdbm"'
> 
> This works and even without pulling in an extra dependency on db-1

Nothing I have suggested blocks actually fixing the bug.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] apache2 default for 2006.0

[Michael Cummings]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Here's the deal.  We have a new user that installs Gentoo.  After
> installing Gentoo, he tries to "emerge nagios" and it dies on building
> apache over a bug that has been known for some time and still isn't
> resolved.  How exactly does that make us look?  How exactly does that
> make Release Engineering look when a "default install" cannot even
> install apache properly?  APACHE!!!  Whether we are responsible for
> apache or not, we *are* responsible for the release.  Having things
> completely broken in the default install is *not* acceptable.  The bug
> was reported in June and while there has been some action in the bug, no
> fix has been issued.  Again, this is *not* acceptable.  Now, because of
> this, it is my determination that we have a serious problem that *will*
> affect the 2006.0 release, and I am trying to do something proactive to
> prevent it.
> 

Case in point: I built a fresh, iso downloaded this weekend from w.g.o,
and i failed to bring portage up to date before installing the stable
apache2 - and what i got was broken because it was lacking the enewuser
for apache (it built, installed, etc. - just couldn't run without either
manually adding the user or syncing the dead-end box). And this was on a
100% stable box using the iso at
http://bouncer.gentoo.org/?product=gentoo-2005.1-install-minimum&os=x86
(link off the where page).

OK, so I'm not bright for not syncing before starting emerging - but i
can't imagine a new to gentoo user, not quite up with the "portage
changes by the nanosecond" would think to sync after building from a livecd.

just my two <insert monatary system here> worth :)

~mcummings
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] apache2 default for 2006.0

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2112 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 09:22 -0500, Michael Cummings wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Here's the deal.  We have a new user that installs Gentoo.  After
> > installing Gentoo, he tries to "emerge nagios" and it dies on building
> > apache over a bug that has been known for some time and still isn't
> > resolved.  How exactly does that make us look?  How exactly does that
> > make Release Engineering look when a "default install" cannot even
> > install apache properly?  APACHE!!!  Whether we are responsible for
> > apache or not, we *are* responsible for the release.  Having things
> > completely broken in the default install is *not* acceptable.  The bug
> > was reported in June and while there has been some action in the bug, no
> > fix has been issued.  Again, this is *not* acceptable.  Now, because of
> > this, it is my determination that we have a serious problem that *will*
> > affect the 2006.0 release, and I am trying to do something proactive to
> > prevent it.
> > 
> 
> Case in point: I built a fresh, iso downloaded this weekend from w.g.o,
> and i failed to bring portage up to date before installing the stable
> apache2 - and what i got was broken because it was lacking the enewuser
> for apache (it built, installed, etc. - just couldn't run without either
> manually adding the user or syncing the dead-end box). And this was on a
> 100% stable box using the iso at
> http://bouncer.gentoo.org/?product=gentoo-2005.1-install-minimum&os=x86
> (link off the where page).

Thanks for the reminder... bug #114020... :P

Anyway, what I am suggesting would not have resolved this issue for you.

> OK, so I'm not bright for not syncing before starting emerging - but i
> can't imagine a new to gentoo user, not quite up with the "portage
> changes by the nanosecond" would think to sync after building from a livecd.

A new user would likely be reading the Handbook, which has the user
perform an emerge --sync (except for GRP).

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]