#18650 [Bgs]: 4.2.2CVS requires > Apache 2.0.40

From: Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:50:22 +0000
Subject: #18650 [Bgs]: 4.2.2CVS requires > Apache 2.0.40
References: 1  Groups: php.bugs 
Request: Send a blank email to php-bugs+get-15587@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message
ID: 18650 User updated by: mclinden@informed.net Reported By: mclinden@informed.net Status: Bogus Bug Type: Compile Failure Operating System: Linux PHP Version: 4CVS-2002-07-30 New Comment: I fully realize that Apache 2.0 support is *experimental* (though 2.0 development has been going on long enough that there was ample time to prepare). But 4.2.0 and 4.2.1 actually compiled under Apache 2.0 and worked. 4.2.2 is, essentially, a *required* upgrade, even for experimenters and developers. The fix to sapi/apache2filter/php_functions.c is trivial but the excuse given by the developers was that there was a "rush" to get 4.2.2 out and the "fix" is in the CVS not the tarball. Fine. But the CVS breaks other things. I didn't ask or expect to compile the CVS but at the very least, fix the silly tarball. After all, you can also fly experimental aircraft with known risks but if your sure it is gonna crash out of the box you'd be stupid to try it. And the willingness of end users to try the experimental versions is how you find bugs. Comprenez? Previous Comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2002-07-30 10:41:41] cynic@php.net you can see signs saying "apache 2.0 support is *EXPERIMENTAL*" all over the place. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2002-07-30 10:35:59] mclinden@informed.net You miss my point. 4.2.2 is required to fix security problems with the prior 4.x releases. The CVS (NOT the TARBALL) is required to fix a bug in sapi/apache2filter/php_functions.c. But the CVS does not compile with a production version of Apache. Your comment "if it says it's required then it's required" is a senseless waste of bandwidth. Either the tarball should be fixed to compile with Apache 2.0.39 or the CVS should not require 2.0.40. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2002-07-30 10:27:59] cynic@php.net if it says it's required then it's required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2002-07-30 10:27:43] edink@php.net Yes that is correct. If you need to compile PHP with Apache 2.0.39 use -STABLE snapshot or checkout PHP_4_2_0 branch from the cvs repository. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2002-07-30 10:07:14] mclinden@informed.net Attempting to compile the latest CVS results in a error that the version of Apache must be equal to or greater than 2.0.40 (which is still in development). Is this correct? The reason I ask is that the CVS fixes other problems with Apache 2.0 compiles (including the infamous AP_MODULE_MAGIC_AT_LEAST). Thanks in advance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=18650&edit=1

« previous php.bugs (#15587) next »