Re: [BUG 2.41.0] t/lib-httpd/apache.conf incompatible with RHEL/CentOS 7
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- May 18, 2023, 23:23 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqy1llql56.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <20230518231056.GA1752284@coredump.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 6 quoted lines
> Yeah, I agree what I wrote is a bit unclear. I think what I meant was > "..recent enough that we'll still encounter older versions in the wild". > > But yours is even better, since you dug up the actual version it ships. > Do you want to squash that into the commit message, or do you prefer a > re-send?
Neither. What you wrote was serviceable (and my comment was labeled "nitpick" for that reason) even though it might have been a bit unclear.
Show 21 quoted lines
>> > +enable_cgipassauth () {
>> > + # We are looking for 2.4.13 or more recent. Since we only support
>> > + # 2.4 and up, no need to check for older major/minor.
>> > + if test "$HTTPD_VERSION_MAJOR" = 2 &&
>> > + test "$HTTPD_VERSION_MINOR" = 4 &&
>> > + test "$(echo $HTTPD_VERSION | cut -d. -f3)" -lt 13
>>
>> As HTTPD_VERSION comes from
>>
>> $LIB_HTTPD_PATH -v | sed -n 's|^Server version: Apache/\([0-9.]*\).*|p'
>>
>> and parses a line like "Server version: Apache/2.4.6 (CentOS)",
>> unless somebody ships 2.4 without any digit after it, the above
>> should be safe ;-)
>
> Yep. I wondered about trying to be more paranoid here, but I think
> there's not much point until we see a real world example. The most
> likely outcome of a mis-parse is that we'd claim "this looks too old"
> and skip the t5536 tests, which seems OK (at least nobody gets an
> unexpected test failure, though it may mean that they simply gloss over
> the problem).Yup, this will be in 'next' and will become part of -rc1.
Thanks.