MPM ITK (was: Bits from the Apache Maintainers ...)

[Stefan Fritsch <sf@sfritsch.de>]

Hi Steinar,

On Friday 30 March 2012, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 08:23:54AM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > But this of course doesn't mean that ITK won't be included, just
> > that it's not sure yet.
> 
> Just so it's clear: If you decide not to keep mpm-itk in the main
> source package, please let me know before the freeze, so I can go
> back to maintaining my own separate source package. (We did this
> in the earliest days, although with a package “apache2-src” that I
> could build-depend on and the RMs then binNMUing.)

That was a big PITA for the release and security teams. I don't think 
we want to do that again. But I have looked at the patches by now, and 
I think they are isolated enough that they will not break unrelated 
things.

Some issues:

00-revert-r806010.patch would break the ABI. That's not possible, even 
if no (open-source) user of the ABI is known. But I have fixed the 
issue in a different way upstream. That fix will be in 2.4.2 and 
2.4.1-3. So, that's something you should change upstream, too.

The interfaces you add should IMHO not be exposed in any header files 
that are shipped in the apache2-dev package. So, for the Debian 
package, I would prefer to have the 
AP_DECLARE_HOOK(int,post_perdir_config,(request_rec *r)) in itk.c and 
server/request.c and not in the header.

In 07-base-functionality.patch in assign_user_id():
You may want to call ap_check_cmd_context(cmd, NOT_IN_HTACCESS) here,
ACCESS_CONF may mean .htaccess in 2.4 through the new 
AllowOverrideList direcive.

Minor nitpick: In 11-fix-htaccess... it should be "extern 
AP_DECLARE_DATA int ap_running_under_mpm_itk" not 
AP_MODULE_DECLARE_DATA.


About inclusion in the 2.4 pacakges:

Currently the 2.4 package doesn't have a apache2-mpm-itk transitional 
package. I am not sure if adding it will force NEW processing again. 
Therefore, I would like to have 2.4.1-3 uploaded before adding that 
transitional package back. It doesn't really matter if the actual 
mpm_itk module is added before or after 2.4.1-3, though. So, you may 
already take a stab at including itk in the package. You already have 
commit access.

Cheers,
Stefan