[gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)

[gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)

[Christian Parpart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 960 bytes --]

Hi guys,

refering to [1] and [2] I must see, that we've been in testing phase for quite 
a long time now. Our eclass' changes reflect only to masked and/or testing 
ebuilds, though, marking stable ebuilds somewhat obsolete.

Although, apache httpd is bumping 2.0.54 very soon and our latest *stable* is 
just 2.0.52-r1 (and yet obsolete in all aspects). 

Before bumping a new 2.0.54 release of apache2, I would like to catch all 
problems we maybe have to fix right before going stable.

Though, ...

please test apache-2.0.53 and/or apache-1.3.33-r2 (including your favorite 
apache modules) on your system(s) and please report any oddies you 
experience.

Thanks in advance,
Christian Parpart.

[1] http://packages.gentoo.org/ebuilds/?apache-2.0.53
[2] http://packages.gentoo.org/ebuilds/?apache-1.3.33-r2

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 15:57:13 up 50 days, 12:22,  1 user,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)

[Brian Jackson]

How about not breaking apache? I was a little beyond pissed when I had
to sit there for 2 hours trying to figure out why my apache was broken,
and who was going to get put on my list of being kicked in the junk.
Just for some stupid config file changes. I find it very hard to believe
you guys couldn't come up with a better way to do it. Even if that means
doing evil stuff in one of the stages that isn't sandboxed.

--Iggy

On Sat, 2005-04-09 at 15:59 +0200, Christian Parpart wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> refering to [1] and [2] I must see, that we've been in testing phase for quite 
> a long time now. Our eclass' changes reflect only to masked and/or testing 
> ebuilds, though, marking stable ebuilds somewhat obsolete.
> 
> Although, apache httpd is bumping 2.0.54 very soon and our latest *stable* is 
> just 2.0.52-r1 (and yet obsolete in all aspects). 
> 
> Before bumping a new 2.0.54 release of apache2, I would like to catch all 
> problems we maybe have to fix right before going stable.
> 
> Though, ...
> 
> please test apache-2.0.53 and/or apache-1.3.33-r2 (including your favorite 
> apache modules) on your system(s) and please report any oddies you 
> experience.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Christian Parpart.
> 
> [1] http://packages.gentoo.org/ebuilds/?apache-2.0.53
> [2] http://packages.gentoo.org/ebuilds/?apache-1.3.33-r2
> 

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)

[Christian Parpart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2102 bytes --]

On Sunday 10 April 2005 4:55 pm, Brian Jackson wrote:
> How about not breaking apache? 

We did not break apache, we broke *binary compatibility* within apache.
Are you aware of *why* we decided to break binary compatibility?
Well, if not, I can say we did so to provide LFS to the end-users.
You might not need it, but for sure, others will be very happy about. So, 
please before just asking this, also consider the benifits from it.

Of course, we did not wanna push nearly-everyones little blindly executed 
`emerge -uvD world` into hell. But everyone makes mistakes, so including me. 
sorry for that, though, we got almost every complain fixed already. That's 
why we're requesting for testing, for being sure, going stable won't shoot 
anyone into his foot again.

Finally, the eclass updates have been a BIG must to simplify maintaince in a 
long term. So, we could of course have introduced just yet another eclass 
resisting parallel to the old one - just to have worked around this breakage 
as well. Yeah, we learn all the time :)

> I was a little beyond pissed when I had 
> to sit there for 2 hours trying to figure out why my apache was broken,
> and who was going to get put on my list of being kicked in the junk.
> Just for some stupid config file changes. 

does it work now? when did you upgrade? what problems did you run in? please 
feedback us. That's what we was calling for ;-)

> I find it very hard to believe 
> you guys couldn't come up with a better way to do it. Even if that means
> doing evil stuff in one of the stages that isn't sandboxed.

We thought about doing so but decided against. At least my reason was, because 
this would be a bloody hell and a no-go in a garrantied clean config merge.

I advice everyone to configure their new apache files (httpd.conf for 
commonapache/apache.conf) from scratch.

Regards,
Christian Parpart.

-- 
the following rfc contains how to quote on lists like this:
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 17:57:59 up 18 days,  7:04,  0 users,  load average: 0.28, 0.31, 0.35

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)

[Jason Wever]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 900 bytes --]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:43:13 +0200
Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Of course, we did not wanna push nearly-everyones little blindly
> executed  `emerge -uvD world` into hell. But everyone makes mistakes, so
> including me.  sorry for that, though, we got almost every complain
> fixed already. That's  why we're requesting for testing, for being sure,
> going stable won't shoot  anyone into his foot again.

Are there any plans for a non-branded version of this new Apache
configuration?  It seems a bit opposite of the goal to try to make Apache
more compliant with how it is provided upsteam to be putting in a branded
default front page.

Also if we're stuck with the branding, can we come up with a page that is
at least a little more professional looking or a little less like someone
trying to be witty?

Thanks,
-- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)

[Christian Parpart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1273 bytes --]

On Sunday 10 April 2005 7:18 pm, Jason Wever wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:43:13 +0200
>
> Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Of course, we did not wanna push nearly-everyones little blindly
> > executed  `emerge -uvD world` into hell. But everyone makes mistakes, so
> > including me.  sorry for that, though, we got almost every complain
> > fixed already. That's  why we're requesting for testing, for being sure,
> > going stable won't shoot  anyone into his foot again.
>
> Are there any plans for a non-branded version of this new Apache
> configuration?  It seems a bit opposite of the goal to try to make Apache
> more compliant with how it is provided upsteam to be putting in a branded
> default front page.

current upstream page just sais "It works!". That's indeed not 
what we want to present the Gentoo Apache Users.

> Also if we're stuck with the branding, can we come up with a page that is
> at least a little more professional looking or a little less like someone
> trying to be witty?

If you've a better page. email me. [I'm open to better proposals]

Regards,
Christian Parpart.

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 03:30:23 up 18 days, 16:36,  2 users,  load average: 0.08, 0.15, 0.16

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)

[Jason Wever]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 419 bytes --]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:38:51 +0200
Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org> wrote:

> current upstream page just sais "It works!". That's indeed not 
> what we want to present the Gentoo Apache Users.

So the page that was there previous to this change was not the default?

And why would we not want to present the default Apache index.html to our
users?

Thanks,
-- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)

[Stuart Herbert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Jason,

Jason Wever wrote:
| And why would we not want to present the default Apache index.html to our
| users?

Installing anything as a default page into /var/www/localhost/htdocs/ is
dangerous.  If the Apache install is an upgrade, the default page could
quite easily break someone's working website.

I haven't looked at the new page myself (yet), but I hope that

a) it's only installed if a local USE flag is enabled, and
b) that it's tasteful and contains useful "Getting Started" material

Best regards,
Stu
- --
Stuart Herbert                                         stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                          http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/
~                                              http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/
- --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1rc2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCWropDC+AuvmvxXwRAvXNAJ44V8DDzI1s5NYKPpFOzUY0ONMU4gCfXzJ2
lWYPbrX+amkDBBqPYOBeRoE=
=OFKS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)

[Jason Wever]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Stuart Herbert wrote:

> Jason Wever wrote:
> |  And why would we not want to present the default Apache index.html to our
> |  users?
>
> Installing anything as a default page into /var/www/localhost/htdocs/ is
> dangerous.  If the Apache install is an upgrade, the default page could
> quite easily break someone's working website.

That could be handled via some CONFIG_PROTECT foo (unless someone has a 
more suitable method in mind)

> I haven't looked at the new page myself (yet), but I hope that
>
> a) it's only installed if a local USE flag is enabled, and
> b) that it's tasteful and contains useful "Getting Started" material

The new page is part of a whole new package itself, is a hard dependency 
and contains no getting started type information.  As for tasteful, some 
of that is a matter of personal opinion (mine being that it isn't).

Thanks,
- -- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCWrzLdKvgdVioq28RAkgGAKCg4nnhTdXop6rwqQLsIjKLw/byogCgiCCW
8iw2TOwCW2K1pXos9oFG9cQ=
=58yA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)

[Christian Parpart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1293 bytes --]

On Monday 11 April 2005 7:55 pm, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Jason Wever wrote:
> | And why would we not want to present the default Apache index.html to our
> | users?
>
> Installing anything as a default page into /var/www/localhost/htdocs/ is
> dangerous.  If the Apache install is an upgrade, the default page could
> quite easily break someone's working website.
>
> I haven't looked at the new page myself (yet), but I hope that
>
> a) it's only installed if a local USE flag is enabled, and

yes. definitely.

> b) that it's tasteful and contains useful "Getting Started" material

tasteful. yeah. useful getting started? yeah, one href to 
gentoo org. No, seriousely, you wanna more "getting started"? 
Than hire the documentation team, because upstream apache won't 
maintain "getting started" docs anylonger as a default webpage 
and we did not agree to their current plain'n'ugly "It works!"
page. Once we've set up the server documentation e.g. 
(that one on apache-svn repos that still exists) than yeah, lets
put it up. But for so long? no way. (except for the conditions 
mentioned above).

Christian Parpart.

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 22:15:47 up 19 days, 11:22,  4 users,  load average: 0.85, 0.77, 0.80

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 603 bytes --]

On Monday 11 April 2005 20:07, Jason Wever wrote:
> That could be handled via some CONFIG_PROTECT foo (unless someone has a
> more suitable method in mind)

Actually not as for example an index.html could override my index.php. Even 
worse, the index html file does not need to be called index.html either but 
the name might be configured in either the apache config file in /etc, or in 
a directory specific configuration file which is most often (and by default) 
called .htaccess.

Paul

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 787 bytes --]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:28:05 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Monday 11 April 2005 20:07, Jason Wever wrote:
| > That could be handled via some CONFIG_PROTECT foo (unless someone
| > has a more suitable method in mind)
| 
| Actually not as for example an index.html could override my index.php.
| Even  worse, the index html file does not need to be called index.html
| either but  the name might be configured in either the apache config
| file in /etc, or in  a directory specific configuration file which is
| most often (and by default)  called .htaccess.

Protect the whole directory.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)

[Jason Wever]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Paul de Vrieze wrote:

> Actually not as for example an index.html could override my index.php. Even
> worse, the index html file does not need to be called index.html either but
> the name might be configured in either the apache config file in /etc, or in
> a directory specific configuration file which is most often (and by default)
> called .htaccess.

There's a difference between overwriting the file on the filesystem and 
configuration issues in Apache.  AFAIK, neither are things we protect the 
user against at the moment.

- -- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCXC29dKvgdVioq28RArnCAJ9d1vj+TJ4OJ1D28lR2N/4pUKmp3QCfdHyh
KBhsMwzKCVaBYLoE7IgsEE0=
=7RZU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)

[Stuart Herbert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jason Wever wrote:
| That could be handled via some CONFIG_PROTECT foo (unless someone has a
| more suitable method in mind)

If I catch anyone trying to add CONFIG_PROTECT to
/var/www/localhost/htdocs, I'll happily break their fingers.  Portage's
concept of CONFIG_PROTECT is totally unsuitable for anything inside this
directory.  If you want to see how to handle that properly, look at how
webapp-config does it.

| The new page is part of a whole new package itself, is a hard dependency
| and contains no getting started type information.  As for tasteful, some
| of that is a matter of personal opinion (mine being that it isn't).

Hrm ... we need to get all of those issues sorted then before the Apache
refresh can be marked stable.  Thanks for pointing it out.

Best regards,
Stu
- --
Stuart Herbert                                         stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                          http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/
~                                              http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/
- --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1rc2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCXvA/DC+AuvmvxXwRAhjCAKCY8SObNa/hec2EOFKTm3KI/rJYTACeIBzX
GO3mQHO5lvQSSTJd2POGEO4=
=6ta2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www/apache testing request (marking stable anytime soon)

[Stuart Herbert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Protect the whole directory.

Do that, and you break all our webapp ebuilds.

Best regards,
Stu
- --
Stuart Herbert                                         stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                          http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/
~                                              http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/
- --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1rc2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCXvCMDC+AuvmvxXwRAh0QAJ9WDQfkITJrejCI3Brq7WgZ4ZMi6gCglTrS
zKszvBA5gh5iVq2E44o+tV0=
=zrzF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list