Thanks.
Paul de Weerd wrote:
...
Zombies are part of unix, you *need* them in cases. Leaving them
dangling (for too long) is not good of course, clean-up is required.
That's what's happening. I see that one work-around would be to have
cron periodically send a kill signal to the parent. But
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Lars Noodin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Or what are the major reasons 4.3 is going to still use 1.3x?
Licensing.
Looking ahead, what is the timeline for moving to Apache2?
Likely never, unless they decide to change their license.
Or what are the major reasons 4.3 is going to still use 1.3x?
apache2 is not free enough.
* Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-12 10:36]:
Looking ahead, what is the timeline for moving to Apache2?
Likely never, unless they decide to change their license.
even then... I don't see any advatages in apache2, but lots of
disadvantages and a gigantic design fault. No, not one,
On 3/12/08, Lars NoodC)n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking ahead, what is the timeline for moving to Apache2?
Or what are the major reasons 4.3 is going to still use 1.3x?
Take a look at http://nginx.net/ BSD license, seems to work, but I
don't know about its security profile. I'm sure it's
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 08:39:07AM -0500, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
On 3/12/08, Lars NoodC)n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking ahead, what is the timeline for moving to Apache2?
Or what are the major reasons 4.3 is going to still use 1.3x?
Take a look at http://nginx.net/ BSD license, seems
Theo de Raadt wrote:
apache2 is not free enough.
Ok. There were some additional reasons mentioned, but licensing is
enough on its own. I found the old announcement now that I know what to
look for:
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2004-06/0448.html
Apache 1.3.29 is decent
Ok. There were some additional reasons mentioned, but licensing is
enough on its own. I found the old announcement now that I know what to
look for:
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2004-06/0448.html
Apache 1.3.29 is decent enough and has the functionality, name brand
If you want to serve http content via IPv6, then perhaps you can run
httpd on your (IPv4) loopback interface, and have relayd listen on
your public IPv6 interface, and forward requests over IPv4 to it ?
/Pete
On 12 Mar 2008, at 4:22 PM, Lars Noodin wrote:
Theo de Raadt wrote:
apache2 is not
Op Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:05:01 +0100 schreef Pete Vickers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you want to serve http content via IPv6, then perhaps you can run
httpd on your (IPv4) loopback interface, and have relayd listen on
your public IPv6 interface, and forward requests over IPv4 to it ?
And then what
Lars NoodC)n wrote:
Would something like this be appropriate at the tail end of the httpd
man page for v 1.3.29?
Due to licensing changes, the version of Apache shipped with
OpenBSD will stay at version 1.3.29. Bugfixes will be provided,
but no further updates.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A fork does not seem like a good return on investment, so v 1.3.29 will
probably go away sooner than later once the Apache Foundation drops
maintenance on the 1.3 series.
I'm just curious what is in 2.x that you
On 2008-03-12, Pete Vickers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to serve http content via IPv6, then perhaps you can run
httpd on your (IPv4) loopback interface, and have relayd listen on
your public IPv6 interface, and forward requests over IPv4 to it ?
Here's a better way: test the diffs at
bofh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A fork does not seem like a good return on investment, so v 1.3.29 will
probably go away sooner than later once the Apache Foundation drops
maintenance on the 1.3 series.
I'm just curious what is in 2.x that
Quoting Jonathan Weiss [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
bofh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A fork does not seem like a good return on investment, so v 1.3.29 will
probably go away sooner than later once the Apache Foundation drops
maintenance on the 1.3
Markus Lude wrote:
mbalmer@ posted a diff for IPv6 support for the base apache back last
december: see http://mini.vnode.ch/
Excellent. What, in general, are the plans? (Any answer is fine.)
Knowing more reduces the unnecessary questions, experiments and
speculations that get in the way.
My
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:19:18PM -0400, bofh wrote:
| A fork does not seem like a good return on investment, so v 1.3.29 will
| probably go away sooner than later once the Apache Foundation drops
| maintenance on the 1.3 series.
|
|
| I'm just curious what is in 2.x that you need, that
17 matches
Mail list logo
