Fedora 18 : broken configuration for httpd 2.4

[Remi Collet]

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

Hi,

Testing some packages in Fedora 18, I noticed that lot of
configuration for httpd have not be fixed for new version 2.4.

So I open a tracker bug for this issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871373

Currently I have filed ~40 bugs, and continue to check all
applications providing a httpd configuration file.

I you need more explanation on the required changes, feel free to ask.

Regards,
Remi.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlCP4MsACgkQYUppBSnxahiR4QCfX/tow2/DWTLn8jxwSc2D2ifX
> 4ssAn22FM/hfEnsyXzNfkc5FCujGIvIE
> =6Wht
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Remi Collet]

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

Le 30/10/2012 15:14, Remi Collet a écrit :
> So I open a tracker bug for this issues 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871373

Finally : 60 open bugs.

Note : if your package provides an Apache configuration file
and is not listed here, I could have miss it, so please review it.

Some package only provides a minimal configuration with

Alias /foo /usr/share/foo

I haven't open a bug, even if I think this configuration is broken,
but this is not related to httpd 2.4 (by default / access is denied)

Remi.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlCP59oACgkQYUppBSnxahg5ZgCg1Fci1N8ntnSIHFlPyE3q71vu
> oawAoNFzN03mDHFGEHOs7iYCzr5dWnvG
> =GOIw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jóhann B. Guðmundsson]

On 10/30/2012 02:44 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Le 30/10/2012 15:14, Remi Collet a écrit :
> > So I open a tracker bug for this issues
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871373
>
> Finally : 60 open bugs.
>
> Note : if your package provides an Apache configuration file
> and is not listed here, I could have miss it, so please review it.
>
> Some package only provides a minimal configuration with
>
> Alias /foo /usr/share/foo
>
> I haven't open a bug, even if I think this configuration is broken,
> but this is not related to httpd 2.4 (by default / access is denied)

Excellent work thanks

JGB

[Kushal Das]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Remi Collet  wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Le 30/10/2012 15:14, Remi Collet a écrit :
> > So I open a tracker bug for this issues
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871373
>
> Finally : 60 open bugs.

Thanks for the bugs.

Kushal

[Gianluca Sforna]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Remi Collet  wrote:
> I you need more explanation on the required changes, feel free to ask.

So, befoer I dig into manuals, can you name the most common causes for breakage?

--
Gianluca Sforna

http://morefedora.blogspot.com
http://identi.ca/giallu - http://twitter.com/giallu

[Remi Collet]

Le 31/10/2012 22:25, Gianluca Sforna a écrit :
> So, befoer I dig into manuals, can you name the most common causes for breakage?

Some explanation on the tracker bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871373

Remi.

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

It would have been super nice to actually include a link in all of those
bugs, or some reference.  I mean, they must have been filed by program,
so it's not as if you would have had to do a bunch of extra typing.

We really need a "mass bug filing howto" or something.  Preferably
starting with "Don't."

- J<

[Remi Collet]

Le 01/11/2012 18:25, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
> It would have been super nice to actually include a link in all of those
> bugs, or some reference.  I mean, they must have been filed by program,
> so it's not as if you would have had to do a bunch of extra typing.
>
> We really need a "mass bug filing howto" or something.  Preferably
> starting with "Don't."

Have you notice than all this bugs depend on #871373 which provides some
useful information ?

Remi.
> J<

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> > > > > "RC" == Remi Collet  writes:

RC> Have you notice than all this bugs depend on #871373 which provides
RC> some useful information ?

The useful information was not in the ticket.  Which means it wasn't in
the email.  Which means I had to get over to a web browser, wait for
bugzilla to load, and click around (and wait some more) to figure out
what on earth was going on.

People seem to think this is a great thing, and yes, I applaud Remi for
trying to help, but mass-filing tickets is the last resort, to be used
after doing a proper announcement and having discussion.

nirik are working on a proposal for some policy here.

- J<

[Remi Collet]

Le 01/11/2012 18:25, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
> It would have been super nice to actually include a link in all of those
> bugs, or some reference.  I mean, they must have been filed by program,
> so it's not as if you would have had to do a bunch of extra typing.

No, nothing automatic here.

I have analyzed all the /etc/httpd/config.d/*conf from the spec file,
the RPM sources or the upstream sources.

When I detect possible breakage I have open a bug manually.

Remember, this issue was raised in March/April... [1]

Yes probably, I could have do it in a better way...
(and probably earlier)
> We really need a "mass bug filing howto" or something.  Preferably
> starting with "Don't."

You're right, I should have avoid this mass bug filing.

But sorry, I just try to make Fedora better, and I think that ~60 broken
web apps is not good for our image.

Ok, next time, I will think twice before doing this, and prefer use my
time on "my" packages, and only mine.

Remi.

[1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-March/165058.html

[Jóhann B. Guðmundsson]

On 11/01/2012 05:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> It would have been super nice to actually include a link in all of those
> bugs, or some reference.  I mean, they must have been filed by program,
> so it's not as if you would have had to do a bunch of extra typing.

Most of us do this actually manually.
> We really need a "mass bug filing howto" or something.  Preferably
> starting with "Don't."

The proper way to do this is exactly what Remi did as in create a 
tracker bug then have all the relevant bugs  block that tracker bug and 
you just monitor that tracker bug.

The above is the standard practice within the community...

JBG

[Marcela Mašláňová]

On 11/01/2012 06:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> It would have been super nice to actually include a link in all of those
> bugs, or some reference.  I mean, they must have been filed by program,
> so it's not as if you would have had to do a bunch of extra typing.
>
> We really need a "mass bug filing howto" or something.  Preferably
> starting with "Don't."
> J<

Bugs could contain little more info, but I hope our maintainer are aware 
of existence of dependent/blocking bugs.

Remi did wonderful job. We can track changes better than with mailing 
list and replies "fixed".

Marcela