On 10/15/2013 05:27 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Does this patch/commit look okay? It works for me with a simple
provider in different scenarios (vhost that inherits provider setup from
s_main, vhost that has its own setup).
I suppose mod_syslog needs to disallow any attempts to configure it in a
()
+ * 20131112.0 (2.5.0-dev) Add parse_errorlog_arg to ap_errorlog_provider
*/
#define MODULE_MAGIC_COOKIE 0x41503235UL /* AP25 */
#ifndef MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR
-#define MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR 20130924
+#define MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR 20131112
#endif
#define MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MINOR 1
On 11/11/2013 10:50 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Joe Orton wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:33:50PM +, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
Hmm. This points out another issue when using an error log provider for the
main server log:
We lose everything that the server or
ap_proxy_connection_reusable()
+ * 20131112.0 (2.5.0-dev) Add parse_errorlog_arg to ap_errorlog_provider
*/
#define MODULE_MAGIC_COOKIE 0x41503235UL /* AP25 */
#ifndef MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR
-#define MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR 20130924
+#define MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR 20131112
#endif
#define
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/11/2013 10:50 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Joe Orton wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:33:50PM +, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
wrote:
Hmm. This points out another issue when using an error
MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR 20130924
+#define MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR 20131112
#endif
#define MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MINOR 1 /* 0...n */
Why a major bump?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my changes in that commit break binary
compatibility for modules using the older error log
-#define MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR 20130924
+#define MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR 20131112
#endif
#define MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MINOR 1 /* 0...n */
Why a major bump?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my changes in that commit break binary
compatibility for modules using
On 11 Nov 2013, at 12:29 PM, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
The filter calls during write completion are done in the worker threads.
There is no strict requirement that they must not block.
I had an idea in my head that write completion took place in the listening
thread not the
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Eric Covener wrote:
I was looking at a typical apr_thread_create failure for creating a
large # of threads on a system, and the only solution was to increase
roots RLIMIT_NPROC as opposed to the (httpd.conf configured)
I intend to TR 2.2.26 tomorrow... post now if that's
an issue or problem...
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:48:16 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I intend to TR 2.2.26 tomorrow... post now if that's
an issue or problem...
As I mentioned earlier, two additional patches should possibly be
considered for protocol correctness. The first you shepherded into
trunk, so
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:26:51 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I'll RM 2.2.26... how does a TR late next week sound?
Looks like a race condition... c.f. my earlier note :)
My offer stands, but I'm happy to take you up on your offer! But please
note my comments of a few minutes ago
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:04:13 -0500
Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org
wrote:
Eric Covener wrote:
I was looking at a typical apr_thread_create failure for creating a
large # of threads on a system, and the only
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:04:13 -0500
Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org
wrote:
Eric Covener wrote:
I was looking at a typical
The only thing I worry about is that the below
patches aren't even in 2.4 yet, although maybe they
should be in the release-after-next.
Oh yeah... I recall you had an issue with me building
because of potential issues with using a later, but
still 100% valid autoconf/libtool setup. I am not
going
I think http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1527925
is also needed...
On Nov 12, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
The only thing I worry about is that the below
patches aren't even in 2.4 yet, although maybe they
should be in the release-after-next.
Oh
On Tue Nov 12 11:25:57 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Oh yeah... I recall you had an issue with me building
because of potential issues with using a later, but
still 100% valid autoconf/libtool setup. I am not
going to downgrade just to build 2.2 so if that is
*really* a concern, backed-up by the
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:25:57 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Oh yeah... I recall you had an issue with me building
because of potential issues with using a later, but
still 100% valid autoconf/libtool setup. I am not
going to downgrade just to build 2.2 so if that is
*really* a
Eric Covener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Eric Covener wrote:
I was looking at a typical apr_thread_create failure for creating a
large # of threads on a system, and the only solution was to increase
roots RLIMIT_NPROC as opposed to the
IMHO this explains it as limits.conf is a configuration file for PAM. If you
don't use
any PAM methods (haven't worked out which would be needed) in the code the
limits will not
be applied after setuid. Of course pam_limits.so need to be configured for
session for your app
as well.
Ah,
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:30:17 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I think http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1527925
is also needed...
Howso? APLOGNO() is specific to 2.4 and later.
On Nov 12, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote:
On Tue Nov 12 11:25:57 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Oh yeah... I recall you had an issue with me building
because of potential issues with using a later, but
still 100% valid autoconf/libtool setup. I am not
going to downgrade just
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 12, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote:
On Tue Nov 12 11:25:57 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Oh yeah... I recall you had an issue with me building
because of potential issues with using a later, but
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:56:39 -0600
William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:48:16 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I intend to TR 2.2.26 tomorrow... post now if that's
an issue or problem...
As I mentioned earlier, two additional patches should
So what versions of autoconf and libtool should we
be baselining for 2.2.x?
On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 12, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote:
On Tue Nov 12
I just added it to the backport proposal for
2.4... If there is sufficient support for adding
in 2.2 then I guess there will be enough for 2.4.
Go ahead and add to STATUS and we'll see...
On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:55 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:56:39
I'm assuming:
libtool: 1.5.26
autoconf: 2.61
On Nov 12, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
So what versions of autoconf and libtool should we
be baselining for 2.2.x?
On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:22
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:00:52 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
So what versions of autoconf and libtool should we
be baselining for 2.2.x?
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:56:39 -0600
William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Libtool 1.5.26 and autoconf 2.67 were used for 2.2.25
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
So what versions of autoconf and libtool should we
be baselining for 2.2.x?
autoconf: 2.2.24 and 2.2.25 used autoconf 2.67
libtool: I guess I don't know how to check that. Does it simply use the
apr libtool and have no
I'll build w/ 2.67 and 1.5.26 for consistency.
Trying to apply
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/log-message-tags/next-number?r1=1527925r2=1527924pathrev=1527925
... there is no next-number tracking.
How are we tracking numbers on 2.4 vs. trunk, and avoiding some
discordance between the next 2.6 and 2.4 error numbers? Using
On 12 Nov 2013, at 11:41 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Trying to apply
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/log-message-tags/next-number?r1=1527925r2=1527924pathrev=1527925
... there is no next-number tracking.
How are we tracking numbers on 2.4 vs.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:44:08 +0200
Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 12 Nov 2013, at 11:41 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Trying to apply
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/log-message-tags/next-number?r1=1527925r2=1527924pathrev=1527925
...
Am Dienstag, 12. November 2013, 23:44:08 schrieb Graham Leggett:
On 12 Nov 2013, at 11:41 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrowe@rowe-
clan.net wrote:
Trying to apply
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/log-message-ta
gs/next-number?r1=1527925r2=1527924pathrev=1527925 ... there is
On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:00 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Follow-up question; is reuse recommended? In this small bit of trunk
(comments removed for simplicity);
-else if (!lenp) {
+else if (f-r-proxyreq == PROXYREQ_RESPONSE) {
wr...@apache.org wrote:
Wrap at 80 still, here at httpd project
Amen to that. :-)
Chris.
--
GPG Key ID: 088335A9
GPG Key Fingerprint: 86CD 3297 7493 75BC F820 6715 F54F E648 0883 35A9
When trying to do some backports, it appears that 2.4 incorporates
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=609549view=rev
(which adds bail_out_on_error()), whereas this seems missing
from trunk via:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1482522
So how much of that should
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:45:15 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
When trying to do some backports, it appears that 2.4 incorporates
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=609549view=rev
(which adds bail_out_on_error()), whereas this seems missing
from trunk via:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 00:07:08 +0200
Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:00 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Follow-up question; is reuse recommended? In this small bit of
trunk (comments removed for simplicity);
-else if (!lenp)
Looking at the (f-r-proxyreq == PROXYREQ_RESPONSE) code path,
the comments note;
* http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-23
* Section 3.3.3.3: If a Transfer-Encoding header field is
* present in a response and the chunked transfer coding is not
* the final encoding, the
40 matches
Mail list logo
