Carlo Florendo wrote:
Now that we're talking about apache 2 here, is there some chance we
could include PHP as a module in apache? The
apache-php-postgresql/mysql framework has been waiting for a long time
in cygwin now. I remember around 2 years ago that the framework (at
least with
Gerrit P. Haase [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 18.06.05 02:22:11:
Andreas,
may I point you to the thread with the subject:
Date: 04-10-31 14:37
Subject: httpd-2.0.52 (Apache2) testers wanted / maintainer searched
- http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-10/msg01447.html
My server is
Andreas Eibach wrote:
Gerrit P. Haase [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 18.06.05 02:22:11:
Andreas,
may I point you to the thread with the subject:
Date: 04-10-31 14:37
Subject: httpd-2.0.52 (Apache2) testers wanted / maintainer searched
- http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-10/msg01447.html
Andreas Eibach wrote:
*Please ANYONE*: anyone who has this 2.0.xx thing running _successfully_
on
cygwin, please report back here. Maybe I can learn a bit of nifty tricks
from you :)
As I said in the recent thread Apache DSO modules under Cygwin, I'm quite
happily running Apache 2 under
Andreas Eibach wrote:
I thought it was sooo simple (as Apache originates from the Unix world),
but isn't. The most important thing I want to get working at first place
is
this damn LOGGING!!
If I have logs, I can usually find bugs and/or problems myself, since I
know WHERE to search for them.
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
I found the source / build tree, it is still around anyway. The
compressed tarball with the patch is about 400k. May I send
you the patchfile and script (as PM)?
Eep! How did you get a patch that big?
My actual upstream modifications patch is about 10k. (that's
Max Bowsher wrote:
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
I found the source / build tree, it is still around anyway. The
compressed tarball with the patch is about 400k. May I send
you the patchfile and script (as PM)?
Eep! How did you get a patch that big?
My actual upstream modifications patch is
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Max Bowsher wrote:
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
I found the source / build tree, it is still around anyway. The
compressed tarball with the patch is about 400k. May I send
you the patchfile and script (as PM)?
Eep! How did you get a patch that big?
My actual upstream
Max Bowsher wrote:
Andreas Eibach wrote:
*Please ANYONE*: anyone who has this 2.0.xx thing running
_successfully_ on
cygwin, please report back here. Maybe I can learn a bit of nifty tricks
from you :)
As I said in the recent thread Apache DSO modules under Cygwin, I'm
quite happily
Carlo Florendo wrote:
The thing is, libs/libphp4.so does not exist but only libs/libpp4.a
I remember someone saying before that there is a problem in libtool.
However, I don't quite understand how libtool works.
Here's what the make warning says:
libtool: link: warning: undefined
Andreas,
may I point you to the thread with the subject:
Date: 04-10-31 14:37
Subject: httpd-2.0.52 (Apache2) testers wanted / maintainer searched
- http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-10/msg01447.html
My server is not up, I had a crash and all the files below the server
root were lost, I
OK, install succeeded, now the next important thing starts:
Apache 2.0. For a customer, I do need 2.0 and a Unix-ish system, and I actually
cannot afford switching back and forth between (real) Linux and Windows, so
cygwin will have to do.
But 2.0 seems to be required to be patched for
Andreas Eibach wrote:
This is VERY bad. You can only search for Apache and 2 and 0 and 54, but
not for apache and 2.0.54 (read 2 dot 0 dot 54 _in this order_). Quotes
aren't accepted either; I think as the mailing lists archives are that
important and used so much, there should at least
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 07:50:59AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
Andreas Eibach wrote:
This is VERY bad. You can only search for Apache and 2 and 0 and 54,
but not for apache and 2.0.54 (read 2 dot 0 dot 54 _in this order_).
Quotes aren't accepted either; I think as the mailing lists archives
are
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Maybe google wasn't around in B19 days...
It wasn't, not really. Google was founded about a month before B20 was
released.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:35:10PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Maybe google wasn't around in B19 days...
It wasn't, not really. Google was founded about a month before B20 was
released.
Of course there was always altavista or lycos...
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info:
Warren Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 16.06.05 20:43:01:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Maybe google wasn't around in B19 days...
It wasn't, not really. Google was founded about a month before B20 was
released.
True :)
cygwin@cygwin.com schrieb am 16.06.05 17:03:10:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 07:50:59AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
Andreas Eibach wrote:
This is VERY bad. You can only search for Apache and 2 and 0 and 54,
but not for apache and 2.0.54 (read 2 dot 0 dot 54 _in this order_).
Quotes aren't
cygwin@cygwin.com schrieb am 16.06.05 16:48:42:
Nice thing about Apache 2.0.54 is that it compiles OOTB without any errors.
Nice.
See the other recent thread. It will probably take some patching to
work.
Could you please point me to that one?
Off the top of my head I'd suggest
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 10:39:08PM +0200, Andreas Eibach wrote:
cygwin@cygwin.com schrieb am 16.06.05 17:03:10:
Actually, that was [EMAIL PROTECTED] who schrieb:
site:cygwin.com inurl:cygwin inurl:ml query words here
You can even use more inurl:s to restrict by year/month since those
are part
At 05:21 PM 6/16/2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 10:39:08PM +0200, Andreas Eibach wrote:
snip
I'm glad that someone finally suggested this. I think a few more
messages along these lines would have surely kick started a mean
response from me.
Pity it didn't come. I
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 08:21:11PM -0400, Larry Hall wrote:
At 05:21 PM 6/16/2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 10:39:08PM +0200, Andreas Eibach wrote:
snip
I'm glad that someone finally suggested this. I think a few more
messages along these lines would have surely kick
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 08:21:11PM -0400, Larry Hall wrote:
At 05:21 PM 6/16/2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 10:39:08PM +0200, Andreas Eibach wrote:
snip
I'm glad that someone finally suggested this. I think a few
23 matches
Mail list logo
