The new Apache release is available for immediate testing. Please reply-to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with any observed variance between this version and
your previous experience with Apache 2.0.36 and 2.0.35 releases.
The packages, until General Availability release tomorrow early a.m. will
be at;
David McCreedy wrote:
I agree with this approach.
I've confirmed that TPF's strtol function returns an errno of ERANGE.
I don't know if OS390's and BS2000's compilers do as well.
The strtol() of the BS2000 also returns ERANGE (2).
Jim has updated ap_strtol.c with an explicit warning: ...
We are still failing to cull out
/test/
/modules/test/
/srclib/apr/test/
/srclib/apr-util/test/
Cliff had already rolled the package when we noticed, and we didn't
consider this enough of a showstopper to junk them all. But it would
be good to clean them out as part of our tag and
FWIW, I prefer to use the apache version. It is a known and will behave the same on all
platforms. Same argument for using PCRE vs native regex libraries. n
Bill
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 12:08 AM
Subject: cvs commit:
Just the apache-1.3 stuff was tagged at that time, the htdocs a
few minutes later
At 10:34 PM +1000 6/18/02, Brian Havard wrote:
On 18 Jun 2002 05:20:34 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jim 2002/06/17 22:20:33
Modified:src CHANGES Configure
src/include httpd.h
1.3.26-dev (head from 12:48 GMT) is up and running on our main VNUNET site
(Solaris 7/sparc) and it looks great. It chomped some million requests
already...
Pier
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 03:54:16AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
We are still failing to cull out
/test/
/modules/test/
/srclib/apr/test/
/srclib/apr-util/test/
Cliff had already rolled the package when we noticed, and we didn't
consider this enough of a showstopper to
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
Why shouldn't we be including these in our tarballs? They are perfectly
valid, IMHO. They don't get built automatically, and they give our
users something to point at if something breaks. (Also extremely
useful as a source of example code).
I
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
Why shouldn't we be including these in our tarballs? They are perfectly
valid, IMHO. They don't get built automatically, and they give our
users something to point at if something breaks. (Also extremely
useful as a
Hi Bill,
Win32 and Netware should both be working [actually, win32 worked like a
champ,
great job Cliff! Only hassle was the signedness issue I mentioned.]
As it turns out we can trust Win32 on this one to return ERANGE. Now we
had
to make a call on Netware, and since we needed to get
In the last episode (Jun 17), Rick Kukiela said:
I asked on the apache-dev list about when perchild processing will work on
freebsd and this was the response i got:
It will never work with FreeBSD 4.6. Perchild requires a good threading
library, and FreeBSD doesn't have one.
What is being
Brad Nicholes wrote:
I have built and run some preliminary tests for both 1.3.25 and 2.0.39
for NetWare and both seem to check out OK.
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com
cool. A few more
To the best of my knowledge, we have told FreeBSD that their threading
support doesn't work with Apache. In general, we have found
inconsistent return values with a lot of the networking APIs when
threading was enabled.
There are rumors that these are fixed in 5.0, but I haven't tested it.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 10:44:29AM -0500, Rick Kukiela wrote:
In the last episode (Jun 17), Rick Kukiela said:
I asked on the apache-dev list about when perchild processing will work on
freebsd and this was the response i got:
It will never work with FreeBSD 4.6. Perchild requires a good
Brian Pane wrote:
Speaking of getting 2.0.38 or .39 released, shouldn't this code
code be on daedalus:80?.
.38 looks good in test except for the libtool version incompatibility w/FreeBSD,
and will be in production soon.
Greg
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Greg Ames wrote:
.38 looks good in test except for the libtool version incompatibility
w/FreeBSD, and will be in production soon.
Why not .39?
--Cliff
Thanks. Don't have time to look at this now, but I did spend the time to de-pool
apr_hash
for use by mod_mem_cache (see modules/experimental/cache_hash.c). Some of us are
interested in making mod_mem_cache work in shared mem so your code may do the trick...
Bill
- Original Message -
Forwarding to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hit send a bit too quickly...
Bill
Thanks. Don't have time to look at this now, but I did spend the time to de-pool
apr_hash
for use by mod_mem_cache (see modules/experimental/cache_hash.c). Some of us are
interested in making mod_mem_cache work in shared mem
I was looking over mod_case_filter_in for some pointers on filter handling, and
I noticed there was a memory leak in CaseFilterInFilter (line 149).
Since apr_bucket_heap_create doesn't specify a free function,
apr_bucket_heap_make will allocate h-base, and copy the data (buf) there.
The buf
FYI the file apache_1.3.25.tar.gz on httpd.apache.org/dev/dist
contains a CVS directory under /htdocs. The CVS directory probably
shouldn't be there.
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com
[EMAIL
Please ignore. I didn't look at the heap_create code carefully.
Sorry.
I was looking over mod_case_filter_in for some pointers on filter
handling, and I noticed there was a memory leak in CaseFilterInFilter
(line 149). Since apr_bucket_heap_create doesn't specify a free
function,
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Aryeh Katz wrote:
Please ignore. I didn't look at the heap_create code carefully.
Sorry.
;) I thought that might be the case. No problem, thanks for looking at
it!
--Cliff
At 10:33 AM 6/18/2002, Günter Knauf wrote:
Hi Bill,
Win32 and Netware should both be working [actually, win32 worked like a
champ,
great job Cliff! Only hassle was the signedness issue I mentioned.]
As it turns out we can trust Win32 on this one to return ERANGE. Now we
had
to make
I just tested Apache 1.3 (from dev/dist/apache_1.3.25) on AIX and it looks good.
Cliff Woolley wrote:
Everybody please test HEAD of apache 1.3 and 2.0 for compilability on your
favorite platforms. It's almost certain that the build is broken on 1.3
on Netware and Win32 due to the addition
Fixed in apache_1.3.25-win32-src.zip I'm uploading right now.
(there was also one under/htdocs/manual).
Win32 1.3.25 installers are now available for testing.
Bill
At 11:35 AM 6/18/2002, Brad Nicholes wrote:
FYI the file apache_1.3.25.tar.gz on httpd.apache.org/dev/dist
contains a CVS
Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1.3.26-dev (head from 12:48 GMT) is up and running on our main VNUNET site
(Solaris 7/sparc) and it looks great. It chomped some million requests
already...
As it turned out later, we had to get back to 1.3.14 because of a problem in
either
Status update for everyone... the 2.0.39 test images announced about 3a.m.
this morning were moved by Cliff just a half hour ago to let the mirrors begin
to catch up. No complaints on that side.
1.3.25 was DOA, the last minute changes to ap_strtol were mildly borked
[explaining Pier's
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1.3.25 was DOA, the last minute changes to ap_strtol were mildly borked
[explaining Pier's frustration.] All 1.3.25 images are redacted from
/dev/dist/.
So, are you saying that you found out why I was requesting
http://www.vnunet.com/News and I
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim is in the process of rolling 1.3.26 and will announce when there is
a tarball to test. I will be following with the -win32-src.zip package and
installers shortly thereafter.
Please test the tarballs... in /dev/dist
--
-win32-src.zip available, uploading all installers now. Look for the matching
.asc sig to know that the .msi/.exe was uploaded complete.
Bill
At 01:32 PM 6/18/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim is in the process of rolling 1.3.26 and will announce when there is
a
The new Apache release is available for immediate testing. Please reply-to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with any observed variance between this version and
your previous experience with recent Apache 1.3.x releases.
The packages, until General Availability release within the next two hours
will be
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The new Apache release is available for immediate testing. Please
reply-to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with any observed variance between this version and
your previous experience with recent Apache 1.3.x releases.
I only see one thing that looks troubling. In
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 12:30:20PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The new Apache release is available for immediate testing. Please
reply-to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with any observed variance between this version and
your previous experience with recent Apache 1.3.x
I have just finished testing 1.3.26 on AIX and it looks good to me.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The new Apache release is available for immediate testing. Please reply-to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with any observed variance between this version and
your previous experience with recent Apache 1.3.x
Something seems wrong with the shadow tree support. I am seeing this on
Solaris 8:
kodo:~/src% gtar xzvf ~josb/apache_1.3.26.tar.gz
kodo:~/src% mv apache_1.3.26 apache-1.3.26
kodo:~/src% cd apache-1.3.26
kodo:~/src/apache-1.3.26% ./configure \
...as of Tuesday, 18-Jun-2002 14:20:53 PDT . So far, so good. Let us know if
you notice any badness.
Greg
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Greg Ames wrote:
.38 looks good in test except for the libtool version incompatibility
w/FreeBSD, and will be in production soon.
Why not .39?
(that'll teach me to react to any email before reading it all...)
.39 is up running now.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 11:17:59AM -0400, Greg Ames wrote:
.38 looks good in test except for the libtool version incompatibility w/FreeBSD,
and will be in production soon.
What libtool incompatibility? -- justin
It's been reported before, I think, but anyway:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Greg Ames wrote:
mv: misc/unix/Makefile: set owner/group (was: 1158/0): Operation not permitted
config.status: creating locks/unix/Makefile
mv: locks/unix/Makefile: set owner/group (was: 1158/0): Operation not permitted
config.status: creating time/unix/Makefile
I see
Can't build on MacOS/X (I am being silly now!)...
$ ./configure \
--prefix=/Library/Services/Apache \
--enable-module=most \
--enable-shared=max
Configuring for Apache, Version 1.3.26
+ using installation path layout: Darwin (config.layout)
Creating Makefile
Creating
Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't build on MacOS/X (I am being silly now!)...
I AM being silly... My bad, I fucked db.h... Reinstalling the developer
tools made the trick... :(
Pier
--
[Perl] combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion of different
sublanguages
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 02:25:36PM -0700, Jos Backus wrote:
--show-layout
Hm, configure exits 0 before it's done generating files when show_layout=1.
Any idea why this is? I commented out the ``exit 0'' and things seem to work
just fine.
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/
-
An error occured while loading
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/Announcement2.html:
Connection to host www.apache.org is broken
-
It feels like a SEGV, but I can't find any corefiles.
--Cliff
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote:
-
An error occured while loading
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/Announcement2.html:
Connection to host www.apache.org is broken
-
Well, it turned out to be
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote:
Well, it turned out to be because I had forgotten to use lt;gt; instead
of around the email addresses. I have no idea why exactly it failed to
load, but anyway fixing the HTML fixed the problem. Brian Pane is
investigating on a test machine.
The
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote:
Well, it turned out to be because I had forgotten to use lt;gt; instead
of around the email addresses. I have no idea why exactly it failed to
load, but anyway fixing the HTML fixed the problem. Brian Pane is
investigating on
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
Fortunately, it didn't actually segfault. I looks like mod_include
just failed to pass the brigade on to the next filter.
Ah. Well, that explains why I couldn't find a corefile on daedalus. :)
Definitely. I'll debug it tonight if nobody else gets
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jim 2002/06/17 19:07:00
Modified:src/ap ap_strtol.c
Log:
Just in case, handle LONG_* if limits doesn't have 'em
Revision ChangesPath
1.4 +6 -0 apache-1.3/src/ap/ap_strtol.c
Index: ap_strtol.c
Fast feedback to irc://irc.openprojects.net/#apr channel, or simply reply here.
This isn't a long vote, say, the next 15-30 minutes.
The files were all synced by 4:30 pm, not sufficient for the mirrors, but as
good as we are going to get to put these releases in eager users' hands.
Bill
At 06:02 PM 6/18/2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Fast feedback to irc://irc.openprojects.net/#apr channel, or simply reply
here.
This isn't a long vote, say, the next 15-30 minutes.
jwoolley, pier, brian pane, (me) all +1 by IRC
Continuing the tally for a few more minutes.
-1 for 1.3.26. The -f parameter appears to be broken at least on
NetWare. The addition of the 'F' (uppercase) parameter in the argument
list of getopt() looks like it is conflicting with the 'f' (lowercase)
parameter. When I remove the 'F' parameter, -f starts working again.
I'm still looking
At 06:15 PM 6/18/2002, you wrote:
-1 for 1.3.26. The -f parameter appears to be broken at least on
NetWare. The addition of the 'F' (uppercase) parameter in the argument
list of getopt() looks like it is conflicting with the 'f' (lowercase)
parameter. When I remove the 'F' parameter, -f starts
I don't think that it is just NetWare that is broken. Any other
platform besides WIN32 that compiles this same code is also broken. I
can certainly do what you suggested but I think there will be other
platforms affected as well.
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the
The following patch has been checked in to fix the -f parameter.
--- http_main.c Tue Jun 18 17:25:26 2002
+++ \projects\apache_1.3.25\src\main\http_main.cTue Jun 04
22:53:16 2002
@@ -7260,7 +7260,7 @@
while ((c = getopt(argc, argv,
D:C:c:Xd:f:vVlLz:Z:wiuStThk:n:W:)) != -1) {
That code path should be Netware only.
Bill
At 06:34 PM 6/18/2002, you wrote:
bnicholes2002/06/18 16:34:31
Modified:src/main http_main.c
Log:
Fix the -f parameter so that it requires a follow-up argument again.
Revision ChangesPath
1.587 +1 -1
If that is the case then I can certainly put a NetWare patch on
apply_to_1.3.26
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, June 18, 2002 5:44:55 PM
That code path should be Netware
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Brad Nicholes wrote:
If that is the case then I can certainly put a NetWare patch on
apply_to_1.3.26
+1
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 06:02 PM 6/18/2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Fast feedback to irc://irc.openprojects.net/#apr channel, or simply reply
here.
This isn't a long vote, say, the next 15-30 minutes.
jwoolley, pier, brian pane, (me) all +1 by IRC
I think the Apache HTTP Server Project considers that 2.0.x is better
than 1.3.x, but Announcement file in 1.3.26 says:
We consider Apache 1.3.26 to be the best version of Apache available
and we strongly recommend that users of older versions, especially of
the 1.1.x and 1.2.x family,
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Koga Youichirou wrote:
I think the Apache HTTP Server Project considers that 2.0.x is better
than 1.3.x, but Announcement file in 1.3.26 says:
We consider Apache 1.3.26 to be the best version of Apache available
and we strongly recommend that users of older
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 11:53:06AM +0900, Koga Youichirou wrote:
I think the Apache HTTP Server Project considers that 2.0.x is better
than 1.3.x, but Announcement file in 1.3.26 says:
We consider Apache 1.3.26 to be the best version of Apache available
and we strongly recommend that
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/patches.html
Under Submitting your patch, the first sentence still refers to the
old mailing list: If you are a subscriber to new-httpd,
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Greg Marr wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/patches.html
Under Submitting your patch, the first sentence still refers to the
old mailing list: If you are a subscriber to new-httpd,
Fixed thanks.
--Cliff
Hey,
This patch simply updates the defines for the text used in the apache
monitor. Makes it a little more readable.
-- James
--
James Cox :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: Landonize It! http://landonize.it/
Was I helpful? http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/wishlist/23IVGHQ61RJGO/
Why do we not check the return from apr_bucket_read() in cgi_handler?
Bill
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Why do we not check the return from apr_bucket_read() in cgi_handler?
Because it's a bug?
Hi,
I tried to send two cookies using the following ways:
1) Set-cookie: cookie1=val1;cookie2=val2
and also as
2)
Set-cookie: cookie1=val1
Set-cookie: cookie2=val2
But with both the approaches, browsers( IE 5.0.x and Nescape 4.7) seem to get only
the first cookie. I am
67 matches
Mail list logo
