Hmm..shouldn't we be using apr_common.m4 instead of checking it into
our repository? I've changed things in APR's version of this file
very recently, and I don't think we should be maintaining our own
copy.
-aaron
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 10:58:20PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jerenkrantz
From: Thom May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 22 March 2002 18:54
To: HTTPD Dev List
Subject: [PATCH] ensure all directories are created before installing to
them.
Reposting with a sane title. I really ought to work out how to write in
English post 8pm.
-Thom
* Thom May ([EMAIL
Stas Bekman wrote:
Pedro Melo Cunha sent this patch to the modperl list, it probably
belongs here.
The bug he is referring to is fixed in v1.3.24 - or at least works in my
version. Will check again to see if it is actually fixed.
Regards,
Graham
--
-
IIRC, this is fixed in 1.3.24.
Looking at the change log, they mention a bug that multiple set-cookie's
will fail (only the last one will be sent to the client, the proxy will
eat the others). And it was true... The problem is that 1.3.24 final
also has that bug: only the last set-cookie
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 22 March 2002 21:37
trawick 02/03/22 12:37:04
Modified:modules/http http_protocol.c
Log:
add an extra level of parentheses to say yes I know what I'm
doing with
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
Sent: 25 March 2002 14:05
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 22 March 2002 21:37
trawick 02/03/22 12:37:04
Modified:
Hi!
First of all, this is my first attempt to modify an Apache module.
I'm tring to modify mod_mysql_auth to set some environment variables
that will be used by the CGI scripts and also by the mod_autoindex
(wich I will also modify) to change the output based on the priviledge
of the
Ian Holsman wrote:
Nicolae Mihalache wrote:
Hi!
First of all, this is my first attempt to modify an Apache module.
I'm tring to modify mod_mysql_auth to set some environment variables
that will be used by the CGI scripts and also by the mod_autoindex
(wich I will also modify) to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Nicolae Mihalache wrote:
Any ideea why this one does not show the variables? Is mod_cgi
restrictive about the variables it exports to cgi scripts?
If you are running suexec, then the environment is cleaned using a
compile-time safe list.
Joshua.
Joshua Slive wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Nicolae Mihalache wrote:
Any ideea why this one does not show the variables? Is mod_cgi
restrictive about the variables it exports to cgi scripts?
If you are running suexec, then the environment is cleaned using a
compile-time safe list.
Indeed,
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Eli Marmor wrote:
And a yet another note:
It is not a bug that sometime causes problems;
It is a bug that causes mod_auth_digest to fail ALWAYS (when there are
parameters, of course).
That is defined as sometimes. And it is only IE with which it fails,
no?
So it
Can someone remind me how 2.0 is supposed to handle determining which
resources accept POSTs? Can you post to the default-handler (to give
input filters a crack at it)?
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:19:46 +0100
From: Roozemond, D.A. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't know to what extent these changes affect mod_ssl for 2.0 (haven't
had time to look yet), but I figured I'd go ahead and forward them here
just in case.
--Cliff
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:01:35 +
From: Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
Marc Slemko wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Eli Marmor wrote:
And a yet another note:
It is not a bug that sometime causes problems;
It is a bug that causes mod_auth_digest to fail ALWAYS (when there are
parameters, of course).
That is defined as sometimes. And it is only IE with which it
The list has been very quiet for a week or two now. A few notable
bugs are hanging around, but we [on the Win32 platform] pulled
the last beta due to very serious installation problems and more
importantly the .bat file vulnerability.
This is what I see open;
CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
* 34
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
* 34 status: Let's get all API changes and showstoppers in this one.
Please.
Brian and I have the bucket API change almost ready. We were planning on
posting it on the list in a day or two and committing by Thursday or
If you feel it will -improve- stability [nothing else, just stability] then
we can
roll it in even after the tag.
If you feel it needs a bit of 'incubation' - perhaps it should sit in
developer's
trees for a week or two and go out in .35.
Is that a fair approach?
Bill
At 12:49 AM 3/26/2002,
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
If you feel it will -improve- stability [nothing else, just stability]
then we can
roll it in even after the tag.
If you feel it needs a bit of 'incubation' - perhaps it should sit in
developer's
trees for a week or two and go out in .35.
I'm in favor of
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
If you feel it will -improve- stability [nothing else, just stability]
then we can roll it in even after the tag.
The API change is meant to improve performance, not stability. The
buckets code is stable as it is.
If you feel it needs a bit
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
I'm in favor of including the new bucket allocator API
in .34, in order to stabilize the API for 3rd party module
maintainers.
The *implementation* of the bucket free lists, though,
will need a couple more weeks of development and testing.
So if we
Quick Summary of Problem Reports - this was handmade - would a few folks take
TEN MINUTES of your very busy day tommorow to squish 10 reports that you
know to be fixed :-? We could have this down to the twenty real reports in
no time.
PR# CATEGORY SYNOPSIS 2.0.28
7492 build config for
At 01:54 AM 3/26/2002, you wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
If you feel it will -improve- stability [nothing else, just stability]
then we can
roll it in even after the tag.
If you feel it needs a bit of 'incubation' - perhaps it should sit in
developer's
trees for a week or two and go out
Marc Slemko wrote:
Isn't this a matter of IE incorrectly implementing the spec?
I'm not sure that this is the famous incompatibility between IE and
Apache. But I'm not sure it isn't, too. In any case, something in the
current code looks strange, and doesn't make sense. Are you sure that
the
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
If you and Cliff know that's a stable patch, safe for inclusion this
time around, and helpful to implementors [because you promise
not to break the API just as soon as you've first implemented it ;-]
then I'd love to see that committed in the
24 matches
Mail list logo
