Mailing List Archive: Bricolage: devel

Re: RE : [8395] - put apreq back to apreq2 (fix it better if necessary)

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

rolfm at denison

Feb 28, 2009, 4:37 AM

Post #1 of 9 (1608 views)
Permalink

Re: RE : [8395] - put apreq back to apreq2 (fix it better if necessary)

So it looks like we have two choices with this - leave it as-is, which
seems to work for the majority of systems at this point, or make it
work with both. Last night, I was trying to make it work with both,
by changing apreq to apreq2 and adding a wildcard to line 256:

if ($AP{load_modules}.{"${mod}_module"}

Doing that lets it detect the module, but it gives me these errors:

Checking for required Apache modules...
Odd number of elements in anonymous hash at inst/htprobe_apache2.pl
line 256.
Odd number of elements in anonymous hash at inst/htprobe_apache2.pl
line 256.
Odd number of elements in anonymous hash at inst/htprobe_apache2.pl
line 256.
Use of uninitialized value $file in concatenation (.) or string at /
usr/pkg/lib/perl5/5.10.0/x86_64-netbsd-thread-multi/File/Spec/Unix.pm
line 102.
All required modules found.

I suppose I could turn errors off, but that seems to be a junky sort
of way out. I'm sure this is a pretty noobish question, but is there
a way to get the wildcard in there without it spitting the errors?

Thanks,

Matt

david at kineticode

Mar 1, 2009, 9:45 PM

Post #2 of 9 (1516 views)
Permalink

Re: RE : [8395] - put apreq back to apreq2 (fix it better if necessary) [In reply to]

On Feb 28, 2009, at 4:37 AM, Matthew Rolf wrote:

> So it looks like we have two choices with this - leave it as-is,
> which seems to work for the majority of systems at this point, or
> make it work with both. Last night, I was trying to make it work
> with both, by changing apreq to apreq2 and adding a wildcard to line
> 256:
>
> if ($AP{load_modules}.{"${mod}_module"}

Sorry, where's the wildcard there? Looks just like what's in trunk
right now.

>
> Doing that lets it detect the module, but it gives me these errors:
>
> Checking for required Apache modules...
> Odd number of elements in anonymous hash at inst/htprobe_apache2.pl
> line 256.
> Odd number of elements in anonymous hash at inst/htprobe_apache2.pl
> line 256.
> Odd number of elements in anonymous hash at inst/htprobe_apache2.pl
> line 256.
> Use of uninitialized value $file in concatenation (.) or string at /
> usr/pkg/lib/perl5/5.10.0/x86_64-netbsd-thread-multi/File/Spec/
> Unix.pm line 102.
> All required modules found.

What is line 256 in your copy?

> I suppose I could turn errors off, but that seems to be a junky sort
> of way out. I'm sure this is a pretty noobish question, but is
> there a way to get the wildcard in there without it spitting the
> errors?

Would have to know what the wildcard is. And sometimes it make sense
to disable strict and/or warnings in certain lexical scopes in order
to keep the programming clean.

Best,

David

paulo at digitalcraftsmen

Mar 2, 2009, 1:57 AM

Post #3 of 9 (1512 views)
Permalink

Re: RE : [8395] - put apreq back to apreq2 (fix it better if necessary) [In reply to]

Hi,

Matthew Rolf wrote:
> So it looks like we have two choices with this - leave it as-is, which
> seems to work for the majority of systems at this point, or make it work
> with both.

As far as I know the version of the install scripts that is currently
checked into trunk works on every system I've tried including ubuntu and
debian.

Ubuntu and Debian now use apreq instead of apreq2 in the latest and also
the last previous releases so that is what we should support. The make test
error is a different problem (although apache related) and should be
treated differently to the apreq detection issue.

I have to install a new bricolage instance on Debian Lenny today so I will
double check it and put some docs in with the error reporting of the
install script to help people enable the module in their OS, (it's not
enabled by default).

regards,

Paul

rolfm at denison

Mar 2, 2009, 3:51 AM

Post #4 of 9 (1511 views)
Permalink

Re: RE : [8395] - put apreq back to apreq2 (fix it better if necessary) [In reply to]

On Mar 2, 2009, at 12:45 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

> On Feb 28, 2009, at 4:37 AM, Matthew Rolf wrote:
>
>> So it looks like we have two choices with this - leave it as-is,
>> which seems to work for the majority of systems at this point, or
>> make it work with both. Last night, I was trying to make it work
>> with both, by changing apreq to apreq2 and adding a wildcard to
>> line 256:
>>
>> if ($AP{load_modules}.{"${mod}_module"}

That is line 256. There is a "." between the middle brackets, but it
could also be a "*".

rolfm at denison

Mar 2, 2009, 3:53 AM

Post #5 of 9 (1508 views)
Permalink

Re: RE : [8395] - put apreq back to apreq2 (fix it better if necessary) [In reply to]

On Mar 2, 2009, at 4:57 AM, Paul Orrock wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Matthew Rolf wrote:
>> So it looks like we have two choices with this - leave it as-is,
>> which seems to work for the majority of systems at this point, or
>> make it work with both.
>
> As far as I know the version of the install scripts that is
> currently checked into trunk works on every system I've tried
> including ubuntu and debian.

If that's the case then the bug should probably just be closed.

> Ubuntu and Debian now use apreq instead of apreq2 in the latest and
> also the last previous releases so that is what we should support.
> The make test error is a different problem (although apache related)
> and should be treated differently to the apreq detection issue.

Did I miss this somewhere on the list?

> I have to install a new bricolage instance on Debian Lenny today so
> I will double check it and put some docs in with the error reporting
> of the install script to help people enable the module in their OS,
> (it's not enabled by default).

That would be awesome.

-Matt

denny at digitalcraftsmen

Mar 2, 2009, 4:24 AM

Post #6 of 9 (1505 views)
Permalink

Re: RE : [8395] - put apreq back to apreq2 (fix it better if necessary) [In reply to]

On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 06:51 -0500, Matthew Rolf wrote:
> > > if ($AP{load_modules}.{"${mod}_module"}
>
> That is line 256. There is a "." between the middle brackets

Which is only a wildcard when it's inside a regular expression. Where
you've got it, it's the string concatenation operator.

> but it could also be a "*".

* is a wildcard in BASH or DOS, not in Perl.

--
Denny de la Haye Digital Craftsmen
Analyst Programmer www.digitalcraftsmen.net

Exmouth House, 3 Pine Street, London, EC1R 0JH
Tel: 020 7183 1410 Fax: 020 7099 5140

paulo at digitalcraftsmen

Mar 2, 2009, 4:30 AM

Post #7 of 9 (1513 views)
Permalink

Re: RE : [8395] - put apreq back to apreq2 (fix it better if necessary) [In reply to]

Hi Matt,

Matthew Rolf wrote:
> If that's the case then the bug should probably just be closed.

Yes, I'll close it after my testing today.

>> Ubuntu and Debian now use apreq instead of apreq2 in the latest and
>> also the last previous releases so that is what we should support. The
>> make test error is a different problem (although apache related) and
>> should be treated differently to the apreq detection issue.
> Did I miss this somewhere on the list?

There is apparently a bug in make test on debian / ubuntu. I haven't seen
it myself recently but again I'll verify it today/tomorrow and raise a bug
report if necessary.

regards,

Paul

--
Paul Orrock Digital Craftsmen
Lead SysAdmin www.digitalcraftsmen.net
Exmouth House, 3 Pine Street, London, EC1R 0JH
Tel: 020 7183 1410 Fax: 020 7099 5140

david at kineticode

Mar 2, 2009, 8:44 AM

Post #8 of 9 (1503 views)
Permalink

Re: RE : [8395] - put apreq back to apreq2 (fix it better if necessary) [In reply to]

On Mar 2, 2009, at 4:30 AM, Paul Orrock wrote:

>> Did I miss this somewhere on the list?
>
> There is apparently a bug in make test on debian / ubuntu. I haven't
> seen it myself recently but again I'll verify it today/tomorrow and
> raise a bug report if necessary.

I think that bug, which involves unexplainable failing tests, has been
there for years on Debian. I'll be trying a build on my Ubuntu box one
of these days to see if I can replicate it, but since I compile stuff
from source, I bet I don't get the failures. We'll have to see; it'll
likely be a week or so before I can get to it.

Best,

David

rolfm at denison

Mar 2, 2009, 4:20 PM

Post #9 of 9 (1512 views)
Permalink

Re: RE : [8395] - put apreq back to apreq2 (fix it better if necessary) [In reply to]

On Mar 2, 2009, at 7:24 AM, Denny de la Haye wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 06:51 -0500, Matthew Rolf wrote:
>>>> if ($AP{load_modules}.{"${mod}_module"}
>>
>> That is line 256. There is a "." between the middle brackets
>
> Which is only a wildcard when it's inside a regular expression. Where
> you've got it, it's the string concatenation operator.

Yeah, clearly I'm not doing this right. I'm not sure how to do a
regex on it the way Scott does the search. Basically, he looks for
lines with LoadModule at the start, and then counts on the module name
following it directly in line 256. But, that's not the case with the
string 'apreq2'.

Anyway, this may not matter pending Paul's work.

-Matt

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads