DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22946>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22946 Child segfaults during parsing SHTML served by a footer.cgi ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-11-24 11:35 ------- Can't apply the patch against http-2.0.48 (which I'm prefer for using at the moment): 1 out of 20 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file modules/filters/mod_include.c.rej $ more ../BUILD/httpd-2.0.48/modules/filters/mod_include.c.rej *************** *** 3340,3346 **** * We don't know if we are going to be including a file or executing * a program - in either case a strong ETag header will likely be invalid. */ - apr_table_setn(f->r->notes, "no-etag", ""); return OK; } --- 3544,3550 ---- * We don't know if we are going to be including a file or executing * a program - in either case a strong ETag header will likely be invalid. */ + apr_table_setn(f->r->notes, "no-etag", ""); return OK; } Unfortunately, I do not really know, how to modify the patch...do not really find similar in orig version, only something like: /* Always unset the ETag/Last-Modified fields - see RFC2616 - 13.3.4. * We don't know if we are going to be including a file or executing * a program which may change the Last-Modified header or make the * content completely dynamic. Therefore, we can't support these * headers. * Exception: XBitHack full means we *should* set the Last-Modified field. */ apr_table_unset(f->r->headers_out, "ETag"); Could you please create a patch against version 2.0.48? Thank you very much! --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
