Page 2 of 2
Re: Apache 2.2.17 - Call for atomic adoption
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:03 pm
by mikeshinn
EL4 is still supported, so if these are reproducable issues then reporting them would make sense, right? Or has this already happened?
I don't see how these could be fixed in 2.0, its architectural, its like trying to backport a multithreaded stack into a Linux 1.1 kernel, just not feasible or worth it, just upgrade. But if you want to track all these down, report them to Redhat and see if they want to backport all the 2.2 architecture changes somehow and keep the 2.0 architecture intact, be my guest.
Re: Apache 2.2.17 - Call for atomic adoption
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:24 pm
by breun
I don't even know what APR bugs you are talking about and I'm not experiencing any myself AFAIK, I was just trying to help.
Let's get back to the topic of adopting Apache 2.2.17 in atomic: there are some things fundamentally better in Apache 2.2, but EL4 won't get Apache 2.2 and EL5 already has it. So, what's the benefit of 2.2.17 again?
Re: Apache 2.2.17 - Call for atomic adoption
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:16 am
by RS_Jelle
breun wrote:So, what's the benefit of 2.2.17 again?
Almost 5 years of bugfixes as 2.2.3 was released in 2006. And making room for 2.3 in atomic-testing. But no big new features indeed.
I just tried to install it, but it didn't went as planned like with PHP or MySQL:
...
Running Transaction
Installing : httpd-tools 1/7
Error unpacking rpm package httpd-tools-2.2.17-1.el5.art.i386
error: unpacking of archive failed on file /usr/share/man/man1/ab.1.gz: cpio: rename
Updating : httpd 2/7
Error unpacking rpm package httpd-2.2.17-1.el5.art.i386
warning: /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf created as /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf.rpmnew
error: unpacking of archive failed on file /var/cache/mod_proxy: cpio: mkdir
Updating : mod_ssl 3/7
Updating : httpd-manual 4/7
Cleanup : mod_ssl 5/7
Cleanup : httpd-manual 6/7
Dependency Updated:
httpd-manual.i386 0:2.2.17-1.el5.art mod_ssl.i386 1:2.2.17-1.el5.art
Failed:
httpd.i386 0:2.2.17-1.el5.art httpd-tools.i386 0:2.2.17-1.el5.art
Complete!
Re: Apache 2.2.17 - Call for atomic adoption
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:38 am
by breun
RS_Jelle wrote:breun wrote:So, what's the benefit of 2.2.17 again?
Almost 5 years of bugfixes as 2.2.3 was released in 2006.
Fixes are backported, so that package isn't exactly the code that was released in 2006. And new bugs were probably introduced since.
Re: Apache 2.2.17 - Call for atomic adoption
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:46 am
by RS_Jelle
breun wrote:Fixes are backported, so that package isn't exactly the code that was released in 2006. And new bugs were probably intr][quoteoduced since.
I mean bugfixes, not security fixes. Red Hat isn't backporting everything, otherwise they would have called their last update 2.2.17
Btw: any idea why the yum upgrade doesn't work?
Re: Apache 2.2.17 - Call for atomic adoption
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:59 am
by scott
Hmm, selinux maybe? that kind of cpio error means it cant extract the file.
Re: Apache 2.2.17 - Call for atomic adoption
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:05 am
by Highland
No... RH does backport all related security fixes. They don't backport new features or security fixes to bugs introduced after the current version. If they didn't, it would be unsafe to run 2.2.3 vs 2.2.17
The $64k question is what new features does 2.2.17 introduce that 2.2.3 users would want?
Re: Apache 2.2.17 - Call for atomic adoption
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:07 am
by RS_Jelle
scott wrote:Hmm, selinux maybe? that kind of cpio error means it cant extract the file.
It's disabled. Can it be because I didn't stopped Apache before running the upgrade? I guess that shouldn't be an issue for yum/rpm.
From /etc/selinux/config :
SELINUX=disabled
Re: Apache 2.2.17 - Call for atomic adoption
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:42 pm
by scott
no those dont touch the running daemon. Out of file space or some permissions problem perhaps? Its certainly not a packaging issue. That error is coming from the operating system.
Re: Apache 2.2.17 - Call for atomic adoption
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:54 am
by RS_Jelle
scott wrote:no those dont touch the running daemon. Out of file space or some permissions problem perhaps? Its certainly not a packaging issue. That error is coming from the operating system.
We're only using 20% of our file space and I'm doing everything as root. Strange, as it's the first time I get that error.