[A-T] adjusting APACHE and APXS env vars

2004-01-02 Thread Stas Bekman
I'd like to suggest to rename the APACHE and APXS env vars to APACHE_HTTPD and 
APACHE_APXS, respectively, so we end up with the following mapping to the 
command line options:

   httpd = 'APACHE_HTTPD',
   user  = 'APACHE_USER',
   group = 'APACHE_GROUP',
   apxs  = 'APACHE_APXS',
   port  = 'APACHE_PORT',
to make things more intuitive and consistent. Moreover the prefix ideally 
should be: APACHE_TEST_ and not APACHE_, since we already have a bunch of env 
vars which start with APACHE_TEST_ (), such as:

APACHE_TEST_TRACE_LEVEL
APACHE_TEST_STARTUP_TIMEOUT
APACHE_TEST_DEBUG_LWP
APACHE_TEST_HOSTTYPE
APACHE_TEST_HOSTNAME
APACHE_TEST_SEED
and more...
So may be it's better to move to:
   httpd = 'APACHE_TEST_HTTPD',
   user  = 'APACHE_TEST_USER',
   group = 'APACHE_TEST_GROUP',
   apxs  = 'APACHE_TEST_APXS',
   port  = 'APACHE_TEST_PORT',
Hoping that most people don't rely on the APACHE and APXS env vars yet, we can 
just drop them, or we could have a back-compat support for APACHE and APXS for 
some time. Though I'm in favor to just drop them, making everybody move to the 
better API.

__
Stas BekmanJAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide --- http://perl.apache.org
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org   http://ticketmaster.com


Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/support/win32 ApacheMonitor.c ApacheMonitor.h ApacheMonitor.rc wintty.c

2004-01-02 Thread Ben Laurie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nd  2004/01/01 05:26:26
  Log:
  update license to 2004.
Why? Unless the file changes in 2004, the copyright doesn't. And, in any 
case, the earliest date applies, so it gets us nowhere.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html   http://www.thebunker.net/
There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit. - Robert Woodruff


Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/support/win32 ApacheMonitor.c ApacheMonitor.h ApacheMonitor.rc wintty.c

2004-01-02 Thread Andr Malo
* Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  nd  2004/01/01 05:26:26
Log:
update license to 2004.
 
 Why? Unless the file changes in 2004, the copyright doesn't. And, in any 
 case, the earliest date applies, so it gets us nowhere.

It was done for LICENSE 1.0 and 1.1 all the time for some reason. But I
don't know the american copyright rules that well, so I don't really know
the reason Anyone?

nd


Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/support/win32 ApacheMonitor.c ApacheMonitor.h ApacheMonitor.rc wintty.c

2004-01-02 Thread Sander Striker
On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 13:32, Ben Laurie wrote:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  nd  2004/01/01 05:26:26
Log:
update license to 2004.
 
 Why? Unless the file changes in 2004, the copyright doesn't. And, in any 
 case, the earliest date applies, so it gets us nowhere.

We seem to have this discussion every year.  I'm too lazy to extensively
dig in the archives, but:

http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=79209

Roy:
That would change a lot more, and a lot less, than we want.
 I've committed the change for 2.0 and will do 1.3 next.

Roy, care to explain what it is we want (and more importantly why)?
I promise to mold the answer into a developer FAQ.

Sander


RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/support/win32 ApacheMonitor.c ApacheMonitor.h ApacheMonitor.rc wintty.c

2004-01-02 Thread Mladen Turk
 

 -Original Message-
 From: André Malo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Why? Unless the file changes in 2004, the copyright 
 doesn't. And, in 
  any case, the earliest date applies, so it gets us nowhere.
 
 It was done for LICENSE 1.0 and 1.1 all the time for some 
 reason. But I don't know the american copyright rules that 
 well, so I don't really know the reason
 

Me neither.

Something like:

This file is covered by the Apache 1.1 license see
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE for details.

Should be IMHO enough for IQ = 90.
Don't know if the lawyers fall in the range :-).

MT.



Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/support check_forensic

2004-01-02 Thread Andr Malo
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   /* e is the first _invalid_ location in q
  N.B. returns the terminating NUL.
*/
   static char *log_escape(char *q, const char *e, const char *p)
   {
   for ( ; *p ; ++p) {
   assert(q  e);
   if (*p  ' ' || *p = 0x7f || *p == '|' || *p == ':' || *p == '%')
   {
   assert(q+2  e);
   *q++ = '%';
   sprintf(q, %02x, *(unsigned char *)p);
   q += 2;
   }
   else
   *q++ = *p;
   }
   assert(q  e);
   *q = '\0';
   
   return q;
   }

This function is not EBCDIC safe. I'd suggest to use one of the escaping
functions in server/util.c.
Additionally please use ap_assert, which logs before dumping. (applies to
other occurences as well).

nd


Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/support/win32 ApacheMonitor.c ApacheMonitor.h ApacheMonitor.rc wintty.c

2004-01-02 Thread Erik Abele
On 02.01.2004, at 14:34, Sander Striker wrote:
On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 13:32, Ben Laurie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nd  2004/01/01 05:26:26
  Log:
  update license to 2004.
Why? Unless the file changes in 2004, the copyright doesn't. And, in  
any
case, the earliest date applies, so it gets us nowhere.
We seem to have this discussion every year.  I'm too lazy to  
extensively
dig in the archives, but:

http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg? 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=79209

Roy:
That would change a lot more, and a lot less, than we want.
 I've committed the change for 2.0 and will do 1.3 next.
Roy, care to explain what it is we want (and more importantly why)?
I promise to mold the answer into a developer FAQ.
IANAL (nor am I Roy, of course) but after reading  
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html (especially #noc and #hlc) it  
appears to me that basically the correct way is what Ben suggested  
(only bump year when file changes):

The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the  
following three elements:
...
2. The year of first publication of the work. In the case of  
compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published  
material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or  
derivative work is sufficient.
...

On the other hand I don't see any harm in doing the bump in all files  
in one go since one can argue that in the end it's a combined work of  
all the files and we're just stating this in every, single file. So,  
when one file changes, the combined work changes and we've to change  
every file to reflect this fact. Does this make sense?

just my 2c...

Cheers,
Erik