Powered by icon for httpd-2.4 needs update
Hi, I'm not sure who has done original ./docs/icons/apache_pb2.* icons, but I think they should be updated to show 2.4 version for httpd-2.4. We are using that icon in default index.html in Fedora and it would be really nice to see version 2.4 there instead of 2.2. I can probably try to fix the icon myself, but I'm pretty bad at graphic, so I hope the original author still reads this mailing list. Regards, Jan Kaluza
Re: Powered by icon for httpd-2.4 needs update
On 10/02/2012 01:01 PM, Jan Kaluža wrote: Hi, I'm not sure who has done original ./docs/icons/apache_pb2.* icons, but I think they should be updated to show 2.4 version for httpd-2.4. We are using that icon in default index.html in Fedora and it would be really nice to see version 2.4 there instead of 2.2. I can probably try to fix the icon myself, but I'm pretty bad at graphic, so I hope the original author still reads this mailing list. Regards, Jan Kaluza Yes, this does seem to be something that needs fixing. I'm not the original author (t'was way before my time, back in 1999), but what I can do is approximate the original logo (I don't know which fonts were originally used) and create an SVG version of the powered-by logo: SVG version: http://www.humbedooh.com/apache/poweredby.svg PNG version: http://www.humbedooh.com/apache/poweredby.png The SVG version uses the new feather instead of the old, but that should really only be a plus, since we'll have a logo we can maintain and reproduce as we see fit. If people are content with this suggestion, I can turn it into png/gif images and put them in the docs folder in trunk as well as the svg version. Or if the original author still has the original material, he/she can make the necessary changes, I'm fine with whichever it is. With regards, Daniel.
Re: Powered by icon for httpd-2.4 needs update
On 10/02/2012 01:41 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: On 10/02/2012 01:01 PM, Jan Kaluža wrote: Hi, I'm not sure who has done original ./docs/icons/apache_pb2.* icons, but I think they should be updated to show 2.4 version for httpd-2.4. We are using that icon in default index.html in Fedora and it would be really nice to see version 2.4 there instead of 2.2. I can probably try to fix the icon myself, but I'm pretty bad at graphic, so I hope the original author still reads this mailing list. Regards, Jan Kaluza Yes, this does seem to be something that needs fixing. I'm not the original author (t'was way before my time, back in 1999), but what I can do is approximate the original logo (I don't know which fonts were originally used) and create an SVG version of the powered-by logo: SVG version: http://www.humbedooh.com/apache/poweredby.svg PNG version: http://www.humbedooh.com/apache/poweredby.png This looks great, thanks. The SVG version uses the new feather instead of the old, but that should really only be a plus, since we'll have a logo we can maintain and reproduce as we see fit. If people are content with this suggestion, I can turn it into png/gif images and put them in the docs folder in trunk as well as the svg version. Or if the original author still has the original material, he/she can make the necessary changes, I'm fine with whichever it is. With regards, Daniel. Regards, Jan Kaluza
Re: Powered by icon for httpd-2.4 needs update
On 10/2/2012 4:41 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: Yes, this does seem to be something that needs fixing. If people are content with this suggestion, I can turn it into png/gif images and put them in the docs folder in trunk as well as the svg version. Or if the original author still has the original material, he/she can make the necessary changes, I'm fine with whichever it is. Been there, done that, have it still. What stopped it then was the font. What license is the font under. It begs me to ask what the license of the font currently in use is. So this leads me to again ask the question, what font license is acceptable? I can get plenty close with a font from the Open Font Library, it is licensed under the SIL Open Font License 1.1 http://scripts.sil.org/OFL There is only one ugly blog font licensed under the Apache 2.0 License that I have found. So if we are going to hold out for the AL2.0, we should be fontless. Regards, Gregg
Re: Powered by icon for httpd-2.4 needs update
On 10/02/2012 01:56 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: On 10/2/2012 4:41 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: Yes, this does seem to be something that needs fixing. If people are content with this suggestion, I can turn it into png/gif images and put them in the docs folder in trunk as well as the svg version. Or if the original author still has the original material, he/she can make the necessary changes, I'm fine with whichever it is. Been there, done that, have it still. What stopped it then was the font. What license is the font under. It begs me to ask what the license of the font currently in use is. So this leads me to again ask the question, what font license is acceptable? I can get plenty close with a font from the Open Font Library, it is licensed under the SIL Open Font License 1.1 http://scripts.sil.org/OFL There is only one ugly blog font licensed under the Apache 2.0 License that I have found. So if we are going to hold out for the AL2.0, we should be fontless. Regards, Gregg Righto, ASL getting in the way ;) I have updated my suggestion for a powered-by logo using only ASL stuff: Powered by and 2.4 is done with Droid Sans, which is using ASL Apache is done with Syncopate, which is also using ASL. Take a look and see if the result is close enough for jazz, http://www.humbedooh.com/apache/poweredby.svg With regards, Daniel.
Re: Powered by icon for httpd-2.4 needs update
On 10/2/2012 5:41 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: Righto, ASL getting in the way ;) I have updated my suggestion for a powered-by logo using only ASL stuff: Powered by and 2.4 is done with Droid Sans, which is using ASL Apache is done with Syncopate, which is also using ASL. Take a look and see if the result is close enough for jazz, http://www.humbedooh.com/apache/poweredby.svg That's great Dan +1 +1 to a png that's as close to the 259x32 size like the 2.2 one too. Might I ask where the feather came from, that is a nice bold one. Regards, Gregg
Re: Powered by icon for httpd-2.4 needs update
On 10/02/2012 03:42 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: On 10/2/2012 5:41 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: Righto, ASL getting in the way ;) I have updated my suggestion for a powered-by logo using only ASL stuff: Powered by and 2.4 is done with Droid Sans, which is using ASL Apache is done with Syncopate, which is also using ASL. Take a look and see if the result is close enough for jazz, http://www.humbedooh.com/apache/poweredby.svg That's great Dan +1 +1 to a png that's as close to the 259x32 size like the 2.2 one too. Might I ask where the feather came from, that is a nice bold one. Regards, Gregg The feather came from Apache's press kit; http://www.apache.org/foundation/press/kit/feather_logo_RGB.svg I can do a 260x30, I hope that's close enough :) If there are no objections, I'll create the various png/gif versions and commit them to trunk later today. With regards, Daniel.
Re: 2.0.65
Any others with time to look thru 2.0.65's STATUS file. There are a handful of showstoppers that I'm thinking about deferring and pushing ahead with the 2.0.65 release. On Oct 1, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: I can't recall either, but doing so in conjunction with the 2.0.65 release likely makes sense. On Sep 30, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote: On 9/30/2012 10:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: There was an email on users@httpd that reminded me that 2.0.65 has been long left in a holding pattern. Anyone opposed to me pushing for a 2.0.65 release by the end of this week? No opposition, but this does remind me about the when-will-2.0-be-EOL conversation. I think consensus was 1 year after the first 2.4 release but I don't think I've seen such an announcement (I could have just missed it, too). -- Daniel Ruggeri
Re: 2.0.65
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Any others with time to look thru 2.0.65's STATUS file. There are a handful of showstoppers that I'm thinking about deferring and pushing ahead with the 2.0.65 release. I'll try to find a little time. My 2 cents (which I won't throw at any group of 3 that wants to put out a 2.0.nnn): I don't think we should defer anything. Given the lack of time+interest, IMO the only 2.0.x after 2.0.65 should be to resolve unintended regressions introduced with 2.0.65, and bugs left unfixed in 2.0.65 can remain. Then we wash our hands of it. On Oct 1, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: I can't recall either, but doing so in conjunction with the 2.0.65 release likely makes sense. On Sep 30, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote: On 9/30/2012 10:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: There was an email on users@httpd that reminded me that 2.0.65 has been long left in a holding pattern. Anyone opposed to me pushing for a 2.0.65 release by the end of this week? No opposition, but this does remind me about the when-will-2.0-be-EOL conversation. I think consensus was 1 year after the first 2.4 release but I don't think I've seen such an announcement (I could have just missed it, too). -- Daniel Ruggeri -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
Re: 2.0.65
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Any others with time to look thru 2.0.65's STATUS file. There are a handful of showstoppers that I'm thinking about deferring and pushing ahead with the 2.0.65 release. I'll try to find a little time. My 2 cents (which I won't throw at any group of 3 that wants to put out a 2.0.nnn): I don't think we should defer anything. Given the lack of time+interest, IMO the only 2.0.x after 2.0.65 should be to resolve unintended regressions introduced with 2.0.65, and bugs left unfixed in 2.0.65 can remain. Then we wash our hands of it. +1 and will try to look as well this week.
Re: 2.0.65
On Oct 2, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Any others with time to look thru 2.0.65's STATUS file. There are a handful of showstoppers that I'm thinking about deferring and pushing ahead with the 2.0.65 release. I'll try to find a little time. My 2 cents (which I won't throw at any group of 3 that wants to put out a 2.0.nnn): I don't think we should defer anything. Yeah, I hear ya, and I tend to agree. I'm just less than hopeful that we'll get enough people working on the remaining stopper to resolve them...
Re: Accessing environment variables set by other modules
Hello Jeff, Sometimes envvars are set directly into subprocess_env (e.g., handling of SetEnv/SetEnvIf). IOW, subprocess_env is the primary representation. But the REMOTE_USER and HTTP request header variables are a representation of information stored elsewhere (r-user, r-headers_in), and that envvar representation is created just before running an external process. A module should always look at the primary representation, in this case r-user. Thank you for these statements. Will just use r-user now. Thankful greetings. -- Sitepark Gesellschaft für Informationsmanagement mbH Rothenburg 14-16, 48143 Münster Telefon: +49 251 482655-0, Telefax: +49 251 482655-55 http://www.sitepark.com http://www.facebook.com/sitepark Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Liebold Amtsgericht Münster, HRB 5017
