I'm forwarding this to the list as I assume is what you wanted. Regarding the webfaction stuff, they have it on their internal tracker now. I check the changelogs and the differences between 2.0 and 2.3 are small. Graham is there any reason to call <2.3 insecure? I can see them causing trouble but not security issues, if they do then I'm sure they will update it asap
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Justin Myers <[email protected]> wrote: > I can confirm this, since I set up another mod_wsgi app on WebFaction > just last night. It's listed as 2.0 in both their control panel and in > my Apache logs. > > On Jan 22, 1:31 am, Jorge Vargas <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Graham Dumpleton >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Is there anyone out there using mod_wsgi on WebFaction? >> >> > If you are, what version of mod_wsgi are they using? >> >> > I have seen a post elsewhere that suggests the option they provide is >> > for mod_wsgi 2.0. If this is the case they aren't providing important >> > fixes to wsgi.file_wrapper which would be important for those trying >> > to run Trac. >> >> it advertises itself as 2.0, I'm not sure if you can see this link >> without an accounthttps://panel.webfaction.com/app_type/read/93but >> it's py2.5 ++ mod_wsgi2.0. But you are right it should be at least 2.3 >> I'll make a ticket to see what results out of it. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "modwsgi" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
