Does anyone have an Apache 2.0.5x build for SUSE 10.1 i586? I tried to build 2.0.54 from the source RPM for 10.0, but unfortunately it fails with these statements: ssl_engine_pphrase.c: In function ‘ssl_pphrase_Handle_CB’: ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: ‘PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK’ undeclared (first use in this function) ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: for each function it appears in.) make[4]: *** [ssl_engine_pphrase.slo] Error 1 make[4]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/packages/BUILD/httpd-2.0.54/modules/ssl' make[3]: *** [shared-build-recursive] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/packages/BUILD/httpd-2.0.54/modules/ssl' make[2]: *** [shared-build-recursive] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/packages/BUILD/httpd-2.0.54/modules' make[1]: *** [shared-build-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/packages/BUILD/httpd-2.0.54' make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.46175 (%build) RPM build errors: Unknown option ? in verify_permissions(:-:) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.46175 (%build) I would really like to use the older Apache.. -- Anders Norrbring Norrbring Consulting
On Friday 22 September 2006 16:50, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Does anyone have an Apache 2.0.5x build for SUSE 10.1 i586? I tried to build 2.0.54 from the source RPM for 10.0, but unfortunately it fails with these statements:
ssl_engine_pphrase.c: In function ‘ssl_pphrase_Handle_CB’: ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: ‘PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK’ undeclared (first use in this function) ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: for each function it appears in.)
This is a code-level bug, not a suse bug. "Undeclared identifier" means the code is trying to use some symbol (function or variable) which has not been declared. While in "loosely-typed" languages (such as Perl and Javascript) this is not a problem in and of itself, C/C++ and other "strongly-typed" languages don't allow this. It may be failing because the newer C compiler which ships with 10.1 (gcc 4.1) is more stringent about standards-compliance than the one shipped with 10.0 (IIRC that was 3.4? 4.0?). That means: code which might have compiled without error in older compilers may (under 4.1) refuse to compile because the compiler is more standards-compliant than before. In any case, this is a code-level error, and not a bug in Suse. -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
Anders Norrbring wrote:
Does anyone have an Apache 2.0.5x build for SUSE 10.1 i586? I tried to build 2.0.54 from the source RPM for 10.0, but unfortunately it fails with these statements:
Check that you have openssl-devel installed. /Per Jessen, Zürich
Per Jessen skrev:
Anders Norrbring wrote:
Does anyone have an Apache 2.0.5x build for SUSE 10.1 i586? I tried to build 2.0.54 from the source RPM for 10.0, but unfortunately it fails with these statements:
Check that you have openssl-devel installed.
Yes, I have. All prerequisites are installed. Seems like Stephan's explanation about the code errors and stricter compiler could be it. Anyway, I'm very far from the level of coding experience to isolate and fix those errors. I guess I'll have to try either force installation of the apache2 package from SUSE 10.0, or install an older compiler to be able to build the older apache. Oh well... I've been searching for a ready made build of the 2.0 version of apache that's built for 10.1 i586, but so far no luck. Thanks anyway guys! -- Anders Norrbring Norrbring Consulting
Anders Norrbring wrote:
Per Jessen skrev:
Anders Norrbring wrote:
Does anyone have an Apache 2.0.5x build for SUSE 10.1 i586? I tried to build 2.0.54 from the source RPM for 10.0, but unfortunately it fails with these statements:
Check that you have openssl-devel installed.
Yes, I have. All prerequisites are installed. Seems like Stephan's explanation about the code errors and stricter compiler could be it.
I sincerely doubt it. I still think there's a header file or something missing.
Anyway, I'm very far from the level of coding experience to isolate and fix those errors. I guess I'll have to try either force installation of the apache2 package from SUSE 10.0, or install an older compiler to be able to build the older apache.
Or just build apache from the tarball. /Per Jessen, Zürich
Does anyone have an Apache 2.0.5x build for SUSE 10.1 i586? I tried to build 2.0.54 from the source RPM for 10.0, but unfortunately it fails with these statements:
Check that you have openssl-devel installed.
Said constant is not found in openssl-devel. I therefore may assume that a) my openssl is too old and does not contain the constant yet b) the constant is defined within the Apache source tree c) the .src.rpm is missing a BuildRequires: package that contains said constant Jan Engelhardt --
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Does anyone have an Apache 2.0.5x build for SUSE 10.1 i586? I tried to build 2.0.54 from the source RPM for 10.0, but unfortunately it fails with these statements:
Check that you have openssl-devel installed.
Said constant is not found in openssl-devel. I therefore may assume that
a) my openssl is too old and does not contain the constant yet b) the constant is defined within the Apache source tree c) the .src.rpm is missing a BuildRequires: package that contains said constant
or d) your openssl is too new and no longer has that constant. The correct constant is defined in /usr/include/openssl/pem.h, but it looks like apache 2.0.54 is using an older name. Older versions of openssl called it PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK, but it was renamed PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK in openssl 0.9.8. Apache 2.0.54, 55 and 59 all have a file called "ssl_toolkit_compat.h" which handles this little problem. I have just built 2.0.59 on SUSE 10.1 (alpha2) - no problems. /Per Jessen, Zürich
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:50 +0200, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Does anyone have an Apache 2.0.5x build for SUSE 10.1 i586? I tried to build 2.0.54 from the source RPM for 10.0, but unfortunately it fails with these statements:
ssl_engine_pphrase.c: In function ‘ssl_pphrase_Handle_CB’: ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: ‘PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK’ undeclared (first use in this function)
The name of the variable changed in openssl 0.9.8. Create a patch that changes it to PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:50 +0200, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Does anyone have an Apache 2.0.5x build for SUSE 10.1 i586? I tried to build 2.0.54 from the source RPM for 10.0, but unfortunately it fails with these statements:
ssl_engine_pphrase.c: In function â??ssl_pphrase_Handle_CBâ??: ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: â??PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACKâ?? undeclared (first use in this function)
The name of the variable changed in openssl 0.9.8. Create a patch that changes it to PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK
It's already in apache - "ssl_toolkit_compat.h" /Per Jessen, Zürich
Per Jessen skrev:
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:50 +0200, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Does anyone have an Apache 2.0.5x build for SUSE 10.1 i586? I tried to build 2.0.54 from the source RPM for 10.0, but unfortunately it fails with these statements:
ssl_engine_pphrase.c: In function â??ssl_pphrase_Handle_CBâ??: ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: â??PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACKâ?? undeclared (first use in this function) The name of the variable changed in openssl 0.9.8. Create a patch that changes it to PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK
It's already in apache - "ssl_toolkit_compat.h"
Do you mean #ifndef PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK #define PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK PEM_F_DEF_CB #endif According to Anders, it should be PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK and not PEM_F_DEF_CB.. Haven't tested any of them yet, though. -- Anders Norrbring Norrbring Consulting
On Saturday 23 September 2006 14:38, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Do you mean #ifndef PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK #define PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK PEM_F_DEF_CB #endif
According to Anders, it should be PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK and not PEM_F_DEF_CB.. Haven't tested any of them yet, though.
In 2.0.59 you have, on line 117 of ssl_toolkit_compat.h #ifndef PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK #ifdef PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK /* In OpenSSL 0.9.8 PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK was renamed */ #define PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK #endif #endif This should work
Anders Johansson skrev:
On Saturday 23 September 2006 14:38, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Do you mean #ifndef PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK #define PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK PEM_F_DEF_CB #endif
According to Anders, it should be PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK and not PEM_F_DEF_CB.. Haven't tested any of them yet, though.
In 2.0.59 you have, on line 117 of ssl_toolkit_compat.h
#ifndef PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK #ifdef PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK /* In OpenSSL 0.9.8 PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK was renamed */ #define PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK #endif #endif
This should work
I was hoping for that too... Made a patch for ssl_toolkit_compat.h, so now it reads: #ifndef PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK #define PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK #endif But when running the rpmbuild, I get this again: ssl_engine_pphrase.c: In function ‘ssl_pphrase_Handle_CB’: ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: ‘PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK’ undeclared (first use in this function) ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once (Yeah, I know, I need an UTF-8 compatible SSH.. ;) ) So, it seems like the redefinition in the header file doesn't "bite" for some reason. I'll try to patch the c-file instead. Or even try the 2.0.59 source, but guess that'll break some other patches in the .54 source rpm... -- Anders Norrbring Norrbring Consulting
On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 15:11 +0200, Anders Norrbring wrote:
I was hoping for that too... Made a patch for ssl_toolkit_compat.h, so now it reads:
#ifndef PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK #define PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK #endif
But when running the rpmbuild, I get this again:
ssl_engine_pphrase.c: In function ‘ssl_pphrase_Handle_CB’: ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: ‘PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK’ undeclared (first use in this function) ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
You might want to check to make sure that header file actually gets included
(Yeah, I know, I need an UTF-8 compatible SSH.. ;) )
So, it seems like the redefinition in the header file doesn't "bite" for some reason. I'll try to patch the c-file instead.
that should work too
Anders Johansson skrev:
On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 15:11 +0200, Anders Norrbring wrote:
I was hoping for that too... Made a patch for ssl_toolkit_compat.h, so now it reads:
#ifndef PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK #define PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK #endif
But when running the rpmbuild, I get this again:
ssl_engine_pphrase.c: In function ‘ssl_pphrase_Handle_CB’: ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: ‘PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK’ undeclared (first use in this function) ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
You might want to check to make sure that header file actually gets included
Well, I just presumed it would be, since this is the rpm from SUSE.. :) At least #include "mod_ssl.h" is set at line 31 of ssl_engine_pphrase.c Then in mod_ssl.h at line 110 I see #include "ssl_toolkit_compat.h" so it should be read.
(Yeah, I know, I need an UTF-8 compatible SSH.. ;) )
So, it seems like the redefinition in the header file doesn't "bite" for some reason. I'll try to patch the c-file instead.
that should work too
That's on for the next try.. :) -- Anders Norrbring Norrbring Consulting
Anders Johansson skrev:
On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 15:11 +0200, Anders Norrbring wrote:
I was hoping for that too... Made a patch for ssl_toolkit_compat.h, so now it reads:
#ifndef PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK #define PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK #endif
But when running the rpmbuild, I get this again:
ssl_engine_pphrase.c: In function ‘ssl_pphrase_Handle_CB’: ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: ‘PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK’ undeclared (first use in this function) ssl_engine_pphrase.c:684: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
You might want to check to make sure that header file actually gets included
(Yeah, I know, I need an UTF-8 compatible SSH.. ;) )
So, it seems like the redefinition in the header file doesn't "bite" for some reason. I'll try to patch the c-file instead.
that should work too
Yep, patching the c-file made the trick. Now I only have to fight the RPM build errors: Unknown option ? in verify_permissions(:-:) problem...... -- Anders Norrbring Norrbring Consulting
Anders Norrbring skrev:
Anders Johansson skrev:
[8<]
I'll try to patch the c-file instead.
that should work too
Yep, patching the c-file made the trick. Now I only have to fight the RPM build errors: Unknown option ? in verify_permissions(:-:)
Anyone with ideas on the above mentioned build problem? -- Anders Norrbring Norrbring Consulting
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 07:46:20PM +0200, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Yep, patching the c-file made the trick. Now I only have to fight the RPM build errors: Unknown option ? in verify_permissions(:-:)
Anyone with ideas on the above mentioned build problem?
Look further above in the build log. The line you see in the end (with verify_permissions) isn't the real error, it's just the way that rpm craps out if it encounters an error in some cases. Out of interest, what do you need apache 2.0.x for? Peter -- When in danger, or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. -- Robert A. Heinlein
poeml@cmdline.net skrev:
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 07:46:20PM +0200, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Yep, patching the c-file made the trick. Now I only have to fight the RPM build errors: Unknown option ? in verify_permissions(:-:) Anyone with ideas on the above mentioned build problem?
Look further above in the build log. The line you see in the end (with verify_permissions) isn't the real error, it's just the way that rpm craps out if it encounters an error in some cases.
Out of interest, what do you need apache 2.0.x for?
Peter
It's solved.. :) I need it for my Zend developer environment, the Zend Platform version I have doesn't support higher versions. -- Anders Norrbring Norrbring Consulting
Hi, On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 05:27:40PM +0100, Anders Norrbring wrote:
poeml@cmdline.net skrev:
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 07:46:20PM +0200, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Yep, patching the c-file made the trick. Now I only have to fight the RPM build errors: Unknown option ? in verify_permissions(:-:) Anyone with ideas on the above mentioned build problem?
Look further above in the build log. The line you see in the end (with verify_permissions) isn't the real error, it's just the way that rpm craps out if it encounters an error in some cases.
Out of interest, what do you need apache 2.0.x for?
Peter
It's solved.. :) I need it for my Zend developer environment, the Zend Platform version I have doesn't support higher versions.
Ah, interesting. On http://www.zend.com/en/products/zend_platform/system_requirements I find Supported Web Servers: � Apache 1.3.x � Apache 2.0.x (compiled in prefork mode only!) � Apache 2.2.x (compiled in prefork mode only!) � IIS 5,6 Should I look somewhere else? (I'm not a Zend user) Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (6)
-
Anders Johansson -
Anders Norrbring -
Jan Engelhardt -
Per Jessen -
poeml＠cmdline.net -
stephan beal