Looking at the Apache Perl dev@ traffic, this is obviously popping up more
and more often. It is no longer just a virus scanner issue, but a
restriction to some common WinNT security models in terms of inspecting
file permissions.
While modules should just be asking for APR_FSTAT_MIN scope most
Guten Tag Branko Čibej,
am Mittwoch, 17. Juli 2019 um 16:04 schrieben Sie:
> I suggest you turn off your virus scanner and try again.
I've ran into a possibly related issue described more detailed at the
following places:
Guten Tag William A Rowe Jr,
am Dienstag, 16. Juli 2019 um 15:53 schrieben Sie:
> Would you retest with apr-1.6.5? Minor changes to the handling of symbolic
> links (junction/reparse points) on Win32 in 1.7.0 may be to blame.
I've ran into a possibly related issue described more detailed at the
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 22:12, Steve Hay wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 15:04, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >
> > On 17.07.2019 10:18, Steve Hay wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 18:31, Steve Hay
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 14:53, William A Rowe Jr
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> On Tue,
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 15:04, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
> On 17.07.2019 10:18, Steve Hay wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 18:31, Steve Hay wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 14:53, William A Rowe Jr
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:10 AM Steve Hay
> >>> wrote:
> I'm in the
On 17.07.2019 10:18, Steve Hay wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 18:31, Steve Hay wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 14:53, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:10 AM Steve Hay
>>> wrote:
I'm in the process of preparing a new mod_perl release and have run
into a few
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 18:31, Steve Hay wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 14:53, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:10 AM Steve Hay
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm in the process of preparing a new mod_perl release and have run
> >> into a few test failures on Windows 10 which
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 14:53, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:10 AM Steve Hay wrote:
>>
>> I'm in the process of preparing a new mod_perl release and have run
>> into a few test failures on Windows 10 which are caused by apr_stat()
>> sometimes returning APR_INCOMPLETE
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:10 AM Steve Hay
wrote:
> I'm in the process of preparing a new mod_perl release and have run
> into a few test failures on Windows 10 which are caused by apr_stat()
> sometimes returning APR_INCOMPLETE (70008).
>
> I'm only getting this on Windows 10. If I run the same
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, assure us finfo is an apr_fileinfo_t and not a unixish finfo_t?
Well, an apr_finfo_t actually. :)
printf(APR: file is %lu bytes\n, finfo.size);
You might be interested in APR_OFF_T_FMT (I think that's the name)
I'll
On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:20:10 -0700
Tyler MacDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm getting this output:
APR: file is 0 bytes
stat: file is 21296 bytes
From this code:
bzero(finfo, sizeof(finfo));
bzero(sinfo, sizeof(sinfo));
if((rv = apr_stat(finfo, path, APR_FINFO_NORM,
Davi Arnaut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm getting this output:
APR: file is 0 bytes
stat: file is 21296 bytes
From this code:
bzero(finfo, sizeof(finfo));
bzero(sinfo, sizeof(sinfo));
if((rv = apr_stat(finfo, path, APR_FINFO_NORM, p)) != APR_SUCCESS) {
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
I'm getting this output:
APR: file is 0 bytes
stat: file is 21296 bytes
From this code:
bzero(finfo, sizeof(finfo));
bzero(sinfo, sizeof(sinfo));
First, assure us finfo is an apr_fileinfo_t and not a unixish finfo_t?
if((rv = apr_stat(finfo, path,
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 09:32:39AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
Well since it's a public type, we are screwed on binary compatibity if
we wait for those decisions until later. Love reading that sys/stat.h
header :-/ I'm actually interested in any feedback from
On Friday, January 19, 2001, at 10:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess the way I see it, is that it looks like we are tring to optimize
for error conditions. I would much rather see us optimize for success
personally.
I agree.
-Fred
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
On Friday, January 19, 2001, at 10:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess the way I see it, is that it looks like we are tring to optimize
for error conditions. I would much rather see us optimize for success
personally.
I agree.
I
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 4:59 PM
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
On Friday, January 19, 2001, at 10:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess the way I see it, is that it looks like we are tring to optimize
for error conditions. I would
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 12:46 PM
++1. If you get Windows working, I'll do Unix when you are done.
How about the other way around?
Here's the proof-of-concept on unix; I don't promise it's complete,
and don't promise it compiles, but it underscores the
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:22:12PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Thanks, everyone, who's commented so far... here's the plan;
apr_status_t apr_stat(apr_finfo_t *finfo, const char *fname,
apr_int32_t wantthis, apr_pool_t *p)
wantthis is the bit flag of attributes
From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:52 PM
apr_stat will reply in a new member value, finfo_valid, to
describe the results returned. It will only fail for the
current reasons. If it can't get a particular result, it
just goes on, and it's the
On Friday, January 19, 2001, at 06:06 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:52 PM
apr_stat will reply in a new member value, finfo_valid, to
describe the results returned. It will only fail for the
current reasons. If it
One alternative, both a 'wants' and 'needs' value, or simply a
APR_FINFO_FAIL bit that does what you ask. Apache won't use it,
dav quite likely would in the properties area.
I like the fail bit idea, though I don't se why it's
necessary... well you could abort as soon as you
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 12:46 PM
++1. If you get Windows working, I'll do Unix when you are done.
How about the other way around?
Here's the proof-of-concept on unix; I don't promise it's complete,
++1. If you get Windows working, I'll do Unix when you are done.
Thanks, everyone, who's commented so far... here's the plan;
apr_status_t apr_stat(apr_finfo_t *finfo, const char *fname,
apr_int32_t wantthis, apr_pool_t *p)
Ryan
BTW, could you commit your e-mail message to CVS in the docs
directory. This is relatively complex, and we will most likely want a
detailed description at some point.
Ryan
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
++1. If you get Windows working, I'll do Unix when you are done.
25 matches
Mail list logo
