Looking for new apache maintainer

Looking for new apache maintainer

[Christopher Faylor]

Is anyone interested in being the maintainer for the Apache package?
The current maintainer is MIA.
--
Christopher Faylor			spammer? ->	aaaspam@sourceware.org
Cygwin Co-Project Leader				aaaspam@duffek.com
TimeSys, Inc.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Brian Dessent]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> Is anyone interested in being the maintainer for the Apache package?
> The current maintainer is MIA.

I would like to volunteer for this.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 05:19:12PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Is anyone interested in being the maintainer for the Apache package?
>>The current maintainer is MIA.
>
>I would like to volunteer for this.

Great!  You've got the job and a gold star to boot.

Please send announcements of any new packages to cygwin-apps.

I am very happy that you volunteered.  I honestly did not expect anyone
to stop forward.

Relieved,
cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Max Bowsher]

Brian Dessent wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
>> Is anyone interested in being the maintainer for the Apache package?
>> The current maintainer is MIA.
> 
> I would like to volunteer for this.

Hi Brian,

Do you intend to maintain Apache 1 or Apache 2?

Max.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Brian Dessent]

Max Bowsher wrote:
> 
> Brian Dessent wrote:
> > Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> >> Is anyone interested in being the maintainer for the Apache package?
> >> The current maintainer is MIA.
> >
> > I would like to volunteer for this.
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> Do you intend to maintain Apache 1 or Apache 2?

I hadn't planned to package 2.x because its native win32 version would
be significantly faster with a thread MPM than a Cygwin port.  But I
suppose a Cygwin version would be useful if you wanted to test or
develop things that are destined for a 2.x/Unix machine.  I also don't
know what's involved with compiling 2.x for Cygwin.  Maybe after 1.x and
the modules are out...

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Max Bowsher]

Brian Dessent wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>>
>> Brian Dessent wrote:
>>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is anyone interested in being the maintainer for the Apache package?
>>>> The current maintainer is MIA.
>>>
>>> I would like to volunteer for this.
>>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> Do you intend to maintain Apache 1 or Apache 2?
>
> I hadn't planned to package 2.x because its native win32 version would
> be significantly faster with a thread MPM than a Cygwin port.  But I
> suppose a Cygwin version would be useful if you wanted to test or
> develop things that are destined for a 2.x/Unix machine.  I also don't
> know what's involved with compiling 2.x for Cygwin.  Maybe after 1.x and
> the modules are out...

OK, my reason for asking was because I currently have apr and apr-util
packages pending, so if anyone was to package Apache 2, I'd need to
co-ordinate with them. I have actually got a working cygwin apache 2 to
compile, but it was quite messy, and I have no time to tidy it up at the
moment.


Max.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Brian Dessent]

Max Bowsher wrote:

> > I hadn't planned to package 2.x because its native win32 version would
> > be significantly faster with a thread MPM than a Cygwin port.  But I
> > suppose a Cygwin version would be useful if you wanted to test or
> > develop things that are destined for a 2.x/Unix machine.  I also don't
> > know what's involved with compiling 2.x for Cygwin.  Maybe after 1.x and
> > the modules are out...
> 
> OK, my reason for asking was because I currently have apr and apr-util
> packages pending, so if anyone was to package Apache 2, I'd need to
> co-ordinate with them. I have actually got a working cygwin apache 2 to
> compile, but it was quite messy, and I have no time to tidy it up at the
> moment.

Ah, of course.  I'll contact you before I start packaging 2.x, if ever.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Andrew DeFaria]

Brian Dessent wrote:

> I hadn't planned to package 2.x because its native win32 version would 
> be significantly faster with a thread MPM than a Cygwin port. But I 
> suppose a Cygwin version would be useful if you wanted to test or 
> develop things that are destined for a 2.x/Unix machine. I also don't 
> know what's involved with compiling 2.x for Cygwin. Maybe after 1.x 
> and the modules are out...

My understanding is that the Cygwin port of Apache 1.x is also 
significantly slower than the native Apache 1.x but this didn't stop 
people from wanting a Cygwin version of 1.x. Or is there something in 
2.x (this thread MPM thing) that would make a Cygwin port of Apache 2.x 
much, much slower than the native one?

BTW: Thanks for volunteering for this. Does this mean that a Cygwin 
version of mod_php would be working again?
-- 
Jack Kevorkian for White House physician.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 07:18:42AM -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>BTW: Thanks for volunteering for this. Does this mean that a Cygwin 
>version of mod_php would be working again?

I hope so.  This is one of the reasons that I asked for a new maintainer.
I should have made that clearer.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Brian Dessent]

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> My understanding is that the Cygwin port of Apache 1.x is also
> significantly slower than the native Apache 1.x but this didn't stop
> people from wanting a Cygwin version of 1.x. Or is there something in
> 2.x (this thread MPM thing) that would make a Cygwin port of Apache 2.x
> much, much slower than the native one?

You're correct that 1.x also suffers a performance penalty compared to
the native win32 version.  However 1.x can only operate in the prefork
mode which is not suitable to Windows since process creation is
relatively expensive.  Thus both versions are pokey.  However, with the
advent of 2.x the method of allocating workers is modular (the MPM) and
so you can choose to have them as threads or as the old prefork style,
among others.  With threads the performance under Windows is much
improved.  I suspect (but have not tested) that the Cygwin overhead
would be even more apparent in that case, because 2.x has been
specifically designed to get good performance under win32 natively,
whereas 1.x was never intended for such systems.

As far as I know the popularity of Cygwin Apache is for developing and
testing web applications that will eventually reside on unix servers. 
In that department 1.x is more popular by a huge margin due to its
stability, known quirks, and ability to work well with non-thread-safe
PHP extensions (as well as general stubbornness of sysadmins who avoid
2.x.)  Thus demand for 1.x/Cygwin should naturally be much higher as
well.  If you're actually interested in running a server then the native
version is probably better.

> BTW: Thanks for volunteering for this. Does this mean that a Cygwin
> version of mod_php would be working again?

Yes, I intend to do that.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Andrew DeFaria]

Brian Dessent wrote:

> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that the Cygwin port of Apache 1.x is also 
>> significantly slower than the native Apache 1.x but this didn't stop 
>> people from wanting a Cygwin version of 1.x. Or is there something in 
>> 2.x (this thread MPM thing) that would make a Cygwin port of Apache 
>> 2.x much, much slower than the native one?
>
> You're correct that 1.x also suffers a performance penalty compared to 
> the native win32 version. However 1.x can only operate in the prefork 
> mode which is not suitable to Windows since process creation is 
> relatively expensive. 

When you start Apache you can specify how many subprocesses to run. Thus 
start up can be expensive. And I know that Apache will start new 
processes if need be - presumably if you have a lot of hits. But for us 
relatively low hit guys I think we can live with the once in a while 
[re]startup costs of Apache and the occasional additional sluggishness 
when Apache needs to allocate another subprocess on those rare times 
when our site is getting a lot of hits.

> Thus both versions are pokey. However, with the advent of 2.x the 
> method of allocating workers is modular (the MPM) and so you can 
> choose to have them as threads or as the old prefork style, among 
> others. With threads the performance under Windows is much improved. I 
> suspect (but have not tested) that the Cygwin overhead
> would be even more apparent in that case, because 2.x has been 
> specifically designed to get good performance under win32 natively, 
> whereas 1.x was never intended for such systems.

Would you suspect that you could get Apache 2.x to use threads under Cygwin?

> As far as I know the popularity of Cygwin Apache is for developing and 
> testing web applications that will eventually reside on unix servers.  
> In that department 1.x is more popular by a huge margin due to its 
> stability, known quirks, and ability to work well with non-thread-safe 
> PHP extensions (as well as general stubbornness of sysadmins who avoid 
> 2.x.) 

Win 98 is still wildly more popular than NT+ versions. People are slow 
and reluctant to change. That shouldn't stop progress though IMHO.

> Thus demand for 1.x/Cygwin should naturally be much higher as well. If 
> you're actually interested in running a server then the native version 
> is probably better.

'Cept for ease of configuration (OK, it's not that more difficult in the 
native version) and the part I like, the ability to symlink things which 
the native version lacks.

I had run my site on XP using Cygwin and Apache. For a while I ran the 
native version. Then switched to the Cygwin version, then eventually to 
the native version to use 2.x. Then I got a Linux box and stuck a 200 
Gig drive in it. The pull of having that much web space available and 
reliability of Linux and my just feeling more comfortable with the 
Unix/Linux environment made it a natural decision to migrate to Linux 
and use Apache 2.x there so that's what I have now. And with it I've 
been able to configure mod_php (and prefer that environment my web 
development) and even WebDAV which I use in conjunction with Mozilla's 
remote calenders as well as use some Linux/PHP style web apps like 
Gallery and MovableType effortlessly.

But often, at work, the client has only Windows boxes. The ability to 
install Cygwin and get Apache running on Cygwin allows me to quickly 
develop useful web apps and other things for the client, often amazing 
them that their Windows boxes can do such things! Hence my interest in 
getting Apache and mod_php working under Cygwin again and having a 2.x 
environment would be best as it closely emulates my home environment 
where I often work out ideas, etc. Alas my current client has become 
pigheaded and has disallowed the usage of "unauthorized" software such 
as Cygwin so currently I'm stuck. But I'm hoping that will change.

>> BTW: Thanks for volunteering for this. Does this mean that a Cygwin 
>> version of mod_php would be working again?
>
> Yes, I intend to do that.

Cool!
-- 
I wrote a song, but I can't read music. Every time I hear a new song on 
the radio I think "Hey, maybe I wrote that."


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Brian Dessent]

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> When you start Apache you can specify how many subprocesses to run. Thus
> start up can be expensive. And I know that Apache will start new
> processes if need be - presumably if you have a lot of hits. But for us
> relatively low hit guys I think we can live with the once in a while
> [re]startup costs of Apache and the occasional additional sluggishness
> when Apache needs to allocate another subprocess on those rare times
> when our site is getting a lot of hits.

There's also the issue of switching context between processes vs.
threads.  On a heavily loaded server the thread model should be much
more efficient under Windows.  However as you point out on a lightly
loaded server it's all academic as the difference would be nearly
undetectable.

> Would you suspect that you could get Apache 2.x to use threads under Cygwin?

Yes, but I have not tried.

> I had run my site on XP using Cygwin and Apache. For a while I ran the
> native version. Then switched to the Cygwin version, then eventually to
> ...
> pigheaded and has disallowed the usage of "unauthorized" software such
> as Cygwin so currently I'm stuck. But I'm hoping that will change.

Okay, I'll take that as an enthusiastic request for an apache2 package.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 08:55:02AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Okay, I'll take that as an enthusiastic request for an apache2 package.

FWIW:  Me too!  I think an apache2 package would be a very useful addition.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Thu, 27 May 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 08:55:02AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
> >Okay, I'll take that as an enthusiastic request for an apache2 package.
>
> FWIW:  Me too!  I think an apache2 package would be a very useful addition.
>
> cgf

Ditto.

Perhaps this should be moved to cygwin-apps (which Brian, as all other
maintainers, will have to subscribe to anyway), but one more point while
we're on the subject of Apache: maybe it's time to revisit the apache
postinstall procedure (both the rebase issue and the /var/www one).
FWIW, one idea on the latter is splitting out the documents into a
separate package (apache-docs?), installing over the manual, and using
postinstall to set up the index.html.* files if they aren't present.
This way, "cygcheck -c" won't be confused by the apache packages anymore.
I can elaborate if there's interest.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster."  -- Patrick Naughton

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 12:09:29PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Thu, 27 May 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 08:55:02AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>>>Okay, I'll take that as an enthusiastic request for an apache2 package.
>>
>>FWIW: Me too! I think an apache2 package would be a very useful
>>addition.
>
>Ditto.
>
>Perhaps this should be moved to cygwin-apps (which Brian, as all other
>maintainers, will have to subscribe to anyway), but one more point
>while we're on the subject of Apache: maybe it's time to revisit the
>apache postinstall procedure (both the rebase issue and the /var/www
>one).  FWIW, one idea on the latter is splitting out the documents into
>a separate package (apache-docs?), installing over the manual, and
>using postinstall to set up the index.html.* files if they aren't
>present.  This way, "cygcheck -c" won't be confused by the apache
>packages anymore.  I can elaborate if there's interest.

One again, my assumptions catch up with me.  I was assuming that a new
package maintainer would be rethinking the packaging scheme.  Certainly
the current scheme could use some improvement.

But, yes, if we are going to be discusing this, then we should move to
cygwin-apps.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Brian Dessent]

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

> Perhaps this should be moved to cygwin-apps (which Brian, as all other

Been subscribed for some time now, and redirecting...

> maintainers, will have to subscribe to anyway), but one more point while
> we're on the subject of Apache: maybe it's time to revisit the apache
> postinstall procedure (both the rebase issue and the /var/www one).
> FWIW, one idea on the latter is splitting out the documents into a
> separate package (apache-docs?), installing over the manual, and using
> postinstall to set up the index.html.* files if they aren't present.
> This way, "cygcheck -c" won't be confused by the apache packages anymore.
> I can elaborate if there's interest.

Yes, I'd planned to redo all that.  The manual will go into
/usr/share/doc/apache so that it can be sanely upgraded, instead of in
the docroot next to the user's stuff.  Also use a postinstall to copy
over sample config if not exists, instead of this /etc/apache.new
business.

The other thing that needs attention is this libphp4.dll and rebasing. 
It's really ugly currently: the dll is included in the package as
/usr/lib/apache/new/libphp4.dll and copied over manually by apxs in the
postinstall, which also tries to rebase.  Both will fail if there's an
existing (in-use) dll, and it also means the package manifest is wrong,
causing cygcheck to always report a broken package.  What I'd really
like to do is let setup.exe deal with replacing the dll if it's in use,
and relocate libphp4.dll before packaging to work with the default set
of libs so no rebase is necessary.  Then it's just a matter of adding
the LoadModule lines to httpd.conf in postinstall if they're not there
already.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Max Bowsher]

Brian Dessent wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>> Would you suspect that you could get Apache 2.x to use threads under
Cygwin?
>
> Yes, but I have not tried.

Not without some debugging work. I compiled 2.0.49 with worker MPM (i.e.
threads), but lots of requests failed to be handled.

2.0.49 with prefork MPM works fine, though. I haven't dug any deeper into
the problem.


Max.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Looking for new apache maintainer

[Reini Urban]

Igor Pechtchanski schrieb:
 > maybe it's time to revisit the apache
> postinstall procedure (both the rebase issue and the /var/www one).
> FWIW, one idea on the latter is splitting out the documents into a
> separate package (apache-docs?), installing over the manual, and using
> postinstall to set up the index.html.* files if they aren't present.

This is a really good idea.
And maybe split the base into apache and apache-ssl as well?

The rebase problem only exists with the openssl dll's.
-- 
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/