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 <Fedora(a)famillecollet.com&gt; 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
-- 
http://fedoraproject.org
http://kushaldas.in

[Gianluca Sforna]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Remi Collet <Fedora(a)famillecollet.com&gt; 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
> <Fedora(a)FamilleCollet.com&gt; 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