[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-195?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Graham Dumpleton reopened MODPYTHON-195:
The change for this appears to be having the side affect of the
mod_python/Python
How about naming it PyPache ?
Ulf
On Wed May 9 2007 05:56 pm Graham Dumpleton wrote:
On 10/05/07, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Python is not a good name for this project because Apache Python
will just be too confusing and probably infringes on a PSF
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
1. Python is not a good name for this project because Apache Python
will just be too confusing and probably infringes on a PSF trademark. So
if you have any creative suggestions, send them in, don't be shy, even
if you think they may sound a little stupid at
Mike Looijmans wrote:
Apache includes a feather in its logo, and Python is associated with a
snake. Quetzalcoatl means feathered snake and does not appear to
be used by any other software project.
Which I can fully understand, because Quetzalcoatl is harder to
pronounce than the 16 character
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-218?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Graham Dumpleton updated MODPYTHON-218:
---
Fix Version/s: (was: 3.3.1)
Affects Version/s: 3.3.1
Access to
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-195?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Graham Dumpleton updated MODPYTHON-195:
---
Fix Version/s: (was: 3.3.1)
3.3.x
Affects
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-195?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12494960
]
Graham Dumpleton commented on MODPYTHON-195:
This changes also possibly prevents Apache being run in
Old importer to be removed from code.
-
Key: MODPYTHON-221
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-221
Project: mod_python
Issue Type: Task
Components: importer
Affects
Marius Feraru wrote:
Michael Peters wrote:
Weird. This seems to have been a problem that was noticed in 2005 and Stas
recommended almost the exact same patch.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/perl-modperl/200505.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Any reason this wasn't applied then?
It was.
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Bojan Smojver
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Mai 2007 04:46
An: Apache Dev List
Betreff: [PATCH]: Call dbd_setup() for all virtual hosts or
create mutex inmod_dbd.c
The problem is that the current 2.2.x code calls dbd_setup() only for
global
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 08:20 +0200, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
As far as I understand your problem description the bug is only in 2.2.x and
not in
trunk. So could you please give a pointer to the revision(s) in trunk that
fixed this?
This can be considered for backport then. If this is
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 17:01 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
I don't think this applies to trunk. The trunk uses configuration groups
and then applies dbd_setup to all of them.
Looks like r503931 was where those configuration groups were introduced.
This was the text associated with the commit:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:46:12 +1000
Bojan Smojver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that the current 2.2.x code calls dbd_setup() only for
global server, therefore causing all other VHs to have things
uninitialised. If DBDPersist is On and dbd_setup_lock() is attempted,
mutex doesn't
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
On 10/05/07, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Python is not a good name for this project because Apache Python
will just be too confusing and probably infringes on a PSF trademark. So
if you have any creative suggestions, send them in, don't be
On 5/9/07, Guenter Knauf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
currently from what I see we use:
Apache 2.0.x - has to use APR 0.9.x
Apache 2.2.x - has to use APR 1.2.x
Apache 2.3.x - has to use APR 1.3.x
is this now a mandatory relationship, or is it valid to:
build Apache 2.2.x with APR 1.3.x
This is kind of convoluted, but bare with me:
I have Apache2/mod_perl2 and Apache::Test installed on my system (FC6) in the
standard locations. I now want to install Apache1/mod_perl1 and libapreq 1.33 in
a separate location that doesn't have Apache::Test. Now running Makefile.PL in
for libapreq
Michael Peters wrote:
The attached patch should fix this problem in Makefile.PL by doing the test
for
mod_perl version before the test for Apache::Test.
Weird. This seems to have been a problem that was noticed in 2005 and Stas
recommended almost the exact same patch.
Nick Kew wrote:
Thanks. I've just reviewed both patches, and added them as an
attachment to PR#42327 and a proposal in STATUS.
I apologize for joining this thread a little late. I know it's
more complicated, but I'm inclined to suggest trying to bring the more
comprehensive trunk fixes
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 10:02 -0700, Chris Darroch wrote:
I apologize for joining this thread a little late. I know it's
more complicated, but I'm inclined to suggest trying to bring the more
comprehensive trunk fixes into 2.2.x.
If mod_dbd.c from trunk works in 2.2.x, we should just have
On Thu, 10 May 2007 10:02:12 -0700
Chris Darroch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Kew wrote:
Thanks. I've just reviewed both patches, and added them as an
attachment to PR#42327 and a proposal in STATUS.
I apologize for joining this thread a little late. I know it's
more complicated,
Hi,
On 5/9/07, Guenter Knauf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apache 2.0.x - has to use APR 0.9.x
Apache 2.2.x - has to use APR 1.2.x
Apache 2.3.x - has to use APR 1.3.x
is this now a mandatory relationship, or is it valid to:
build Apache 2.2.x with APR 1.3.x
This would likely work, but I
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
On 5/9/07, Guenter Knauf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apache 2.0.x - has to use APR 0.9.x
Apache 2.2.x - has to use APR 1.2.x
Apache 2.3.x - has to use APR 1.3.x
is this now a mandatory relationship, or is it valid to:
build Apache 2.2.x with APR 1.3.x
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
On 5/9/07, Guenter Knauf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apache 2.0.x - has to use APR 0.9.x
Apache 2.2.x - has to use APR 1.2.x
Apache 2.3.x - has to use APR 1.3.x
is this now a mandatory relationship, or is it valid to:
build Apache 2.2.x with APR 1.3.x
This would
Bojan Smojver wrote:
If mod_dbd.c from trunk works in 2.2.x, we should just have that
instead. No need to carry two different things if the new stuff is
backward compatible.
If you need to, you can just drop the mod_dbd.c from trunk into
2.2.x; we do that and it works fine. The main
Nick Kew wrote:
I was wondering about that, but reluctant to propose a backport
from trunk without doing some more research. If you want to make it
a backport proposal, I'll try and get my brain around it (and one or
two related issues) in the morning.
The main thing I'd point to is this
25 matches
Mail list logo
