I'm pretty-much done shredding the default config and I will give a
couple days for review before I merge it. Feel free to correct any
problems you see.
Things that I know are missing:
- updates to docs: new-features, upgrading, apachectl (remove startssl),
CHANGES
- changes to windows
I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was
tired of disabling it every time I do a new install. I think we should
reconsider what modules are enabled by default. Here is my list of
suggested changes:
mod_version: all - yes
mod_asis: yes - no
mod_imap: most - no
Paul Querna wrote:
I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was
tired of disabling it every time I do a new install. I think we should
reconsider what modules are enabled by default. Here is my list of
suggested changes:
mod_version: all - yes
mod_asis: yes - no
As part of this, it could be useful to
generate a RunningConfig.cnf file as part httpd startup, which
would be a merged config file with comments indicating which file set the
option (and possibly which options have taken defaults).
This would hopefully reduce problems with
conflicting
On 6-Apr-05, at 11:43 AM, Phil Lello wrote:
As part of this, it could be useful to generate a RunningConfig.cnf
file as part httpd startup, which would be a merged config file with
comments indicating which file set the option (and possibly which
options have taken defaults).
You can get easily
--On Wednesday, April 6, 2005 10:42 AM -0400 Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm pretty-much done shredding the default config and I will give a
couple days for review before I merge it. Feel free to correct any
problems you see.
+1 to merge back to trunk. (14k vs. 38k. Yay!)
One last
--On Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:29 PM -0400 Rich Bowen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about mod_ssl being on in most?
In the past, we've said that SSL must be explicit because of the crypto
legal restrictions. -- justin
--On Wednesday, April 6, 2005 9:15 AM -0700 Paul Querna
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was tired
of disabling it every time I do a new install. I think we should
reconsider what modules are enabled by default. Here is my list of
--On Wednesday, March 23, 2005 4:36 PM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
another @@ -1008,7 +1023,15 @@
rnew-status = HTTP_OK;
-rnew-headers_in = r-headers_in;
+/* did the original request have a body? (e.g. POST w/SSI tags)
+ * if so, make sure the subrequest doesn't
Rich Bowen wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was
tired of disabling it every time I do a new install. I think we should
reconsider what modules are enabled by default. Here is my list of
suggested changes:
mod_version: all - yes
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
mod_asis: yes - no
mod_imap: most - no
I would prefer we keep mod_imap as most. Probably the same for
mod_asis. These were default modules in 2.0 - therefore, I think
disabling them unless explicit in 2.2 could be worrisome.
Serously?
Have you ever used
--On Wednesday, April 6, 2005 1:30 PM -0400 Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Have you ever used mod_imap? Or, at least, since 1996? I have a hard
Yes. Yes.
I do wish it were renamed to mod_imagemap though! mod_imap is a poor name.
Note that we could always re-introduce the imagemap CGI
At 11:15 AM 4/6/2005, you wrote:
I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was tired of
disabling it every time I do a new install. I think we should reconsider what
modules are enabled by default. Here is my list of suggested changes:
mod_version: all - yes
mod_asis:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:15:38AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was
tired of disabling it every time I do a new install. I think we should
reconsider what modules are enabled by default. Here is my list of
suggested changes:
At 01:41 PM 4/6/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Wednesday, April 6, 2005 1:30 PM -0400 Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I do wish it were renamed to mod_imagemap though! mod_imap is a poor name.
++1 - 8.3 filenames are so 1980 :)
We are changing a number of other module names, this
--On Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:49 PM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reason not to drop them is that when the gods of httpd
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) decide to change their minds about the 'default'
choice, it doesn't harm existing installations which were
explicitly
* Paul Querna wrote:
I changed mod_imap this morning from 'yes' to 'most', because I was
tired of disabling it every time I do a new install. I think we should
reconsider what modules are enabled by default. Here is my list of
suggested changes:
mod_version: all - yes
+1.
mod_asis: yes
* William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 01:41 PM 4/6/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Wednesday, April 6, 2005 1:30 PM -0400 Rich Bowen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do wish it were renamed to mod_imagemap though! mod_imap is a poor
name.
++1 - 8.3 filenames are so 1980 :)
We are changing
On 6-Apr-05, at 12:56 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
mod_asis: yes - no
I'd prefer - most as it is rarely used but not totally useless.
Others mentioned mod_ssl which I think is too much trouble to be worth
enabling other than when requested explicitly - there's the whole
crypto
regs issue and it does
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Joshua Slive wrote:
I think this config is far clearer and more manageable for a newcomer,
and probably also for an experienced httpd-user. It is also more secure
I know this is propably too controversial; but one thing I'd love to have
in there is somethign like
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I do wish it were renamed to mod_imagemap though! mod_imap is a poor name.
+1 - lets leave the 80ties behind us :-)
Dw.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Joshua Slive wrote:
I think this config is far clearer and more manageable for a newcomer,
and probably also for an experienced httpd-user. It is also more secure
I know this is propably too controversial; but one thing I'd love to have
in there
Brad Nicholes wrote:
I'm still not a big fan of removing the MPM settings from the httpd.conf file. All of the other extra .conf files contain supplemental configuration but the MPM configuration seems to be more along the lines of a ServerRoot or Listen. Despite the fact that these are
I see your rational, but I am looking at it from the point of view that the
user knows that one of the first things that they need to do is tweak the MPM
to fit their load/resource requirements. This is more a matter of where it
they go? I could have sworn they were right here a minute ago.
--On Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:54 PM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:17 PM 4/6/2005, you wrote:
Author: jerenkrantz
Remove merged backport, block one, vote for one.
@@ -382,6 +381,7 @@
non experimental status.
+1: bnicholes, wrowe
+0: minfrin (wait
From the 'Default Modules' thread for renaming mod_imap:
+1 Dirk, nd, justin.
If there are no objections I will rename mod_imap to mod_imagemap and
all the documentation later tonight.
-Paul
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
As I just noted in STATUS for 2.0, read_length isn't a sufficient check.
It'd only be set if the client has *already* read the body *and* they
used the 1.3.x mechanisms for reading the request body.
both true in 100% of the cases I've seen in the wild. ok, I'll admit it
Title: Message
Patch 9298 for bug
18757 doesn't fix bug 18757 (No Content-Length for proxied HEAD requests)... can
this patch be removed from Bugzilla?
Paul Querna wrote:
From the 'Default Modules' thread for renaming mod_imap:
+1 Dirk, nd, justin.
If there are no objections I will rename mod_imap to mod_imagemap and
all the documentation later tonight.
+1
Paul Querna wrote:
From the 'Default Modules' thread for renaming mod_imap:
+1 Dirk, nd, justin.
If there are no objections I will rename mod_imap to mod_imagemap and
all the documentation later tonight.
+1
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2005-04-06 13:17:53 -0400 (Wed, 06 Apr 2005) $]
The current version of this file can be found at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
Release history:
2.0.54 :
APACHE 2.1 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2005-03-30 18:16:16 -0500 (Wed, 30 Mar 2005) $]
The current version of this file can be found at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS
Release history:
[NOTE that only
ok, so let's try this here ... i'm *not* certain this is a dev-list issue; pls
let me know if it's not ... thx! richard
hey richard, you should submit a bug or try the developers list for this
hi all,
i've just started playing with the latest dev trunk; i've had both earlier
dev-revisions and
33 matches
Mail list logo
