A new mod_python 3.2 beta tarball is now available for testing. A
Windows binary for python 2.4 is also provided.
Here are the rules:
In order for a file to be officially announced, it has to be tested by
developers on the dev list. Anyone subscribed to this list can (and
should feel obligated
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Jorey Bump wrote:
-1
Slackware Linux 10.1
Python 2.4.1
Apache 2.1.6 Alpha
I don't think we mean to support 2.1.6 alpha, so this doesn't count. :-)
Grisha
Hi,
Could we focus on Apache 2.0 for the 3.2 release ? Put 2.1 on the
agenda for a later release (why not 3.3 ?).
For the moment I don't see any quick and easy way to support both 2.0
and 2.1, from what you wrote. I'd rather we try to get 3.2 out with a
proper 2.0 support, and try to fix things
No support for Apache 2.1 yet
-
Key: MODPYTHON-78
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-78
Project: mod_python
Type: Bug
Versions: 3.2.0
Reporter: Nicolas Lehuen
Fix For: 3.3.0
See
+1
MacOSX 10.4.2
gcc-4.0.0 (Apple build)
Python 2.4.1
Apache 2.0.54
cheers,
Ron
Ron Reisor [EMAIL PROTECTED] (RWR3)
University of Delaware Information Technologies/Network and Systems Services
Computing Center/192 South Chapel Street/Newark DE, 19716
pgp finger print: 0D 73 06 6F D3 6A 99 D3
Wow, that's a nice one :).
2005/9/7, Ron Reisor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
+1
MacOSX 10.4.2
gcc-4.0.0 (Apple build)
Python 2.4.1
Apache 2.0.54
cheers,
Ron
Ron Reisor [EMAIL PROTECTED] (RWR3)
University of Delaware Information Technologies/Network and Systems Services
Computing
I agree with Nicolas. If we start chasing apache 2.1 alpha support we
might *never* get 3.2 out the door. :-( Also, what's the roadmap for
apache 2.1/2.2?
Jim
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Hi,
Could we focus on Apache 2.0 for the 3.2 release ? Put 2.1 on the
agenda for a later release (why not 3.3
+1
Linux Debian Sid
apache 2.0.54
python 2.3.5
GCC 4.0.2
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Hi,
Could we focus on Apache 2.0 for the 3.2 release ? Put 2.1 on the
agenda for a later release (why not 3.3 ?).
For the moment I don't see any quick and easy way to support both 2.0
and 2.1, from what you wrote. I'd rather we try to get 3.2 out with a
proper 2.0
Yes! Plus, the software I'm developing is working too. I pulled out an
early version of FileSession and started using Session.FileSession. Looks
good. Gotta love it!
thanks,
Ron
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Wow, that's a nice one :).
2005/9/7, Ron Reisor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ron Reisor wrote:
Yes! Plus, the software I'm developing is working too. I pulled out an
early version of FileSession and started using Session.FileSession.
Even better, you can use Session.Session() and the PythonOption session
FileSession configuration directive to get all the benefits of
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
Ron Reisor wrote:
Yes! Plus, the software I'm developing is working too. I pulled out an
early version of FileSession and started using Session.FileSession.
Even better, you can use Session.Session() and the PythonOption session
FileSession
Anybody got FreeBSD? I'm getting this. This is an old and possibly
misconfigured system, so the problem could be on my end.
FreeBSD 4.9
apache 2.0.53 (from ports)
python 2.3.3
$ make
Compiling for DSO.
/usr/local/sbin/apxs -I/home/grisha/src/tmp/mod_python-3.2.1b/src/include
13 matches
Mail list logo
