On Mar 4, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Stas Bekman wrote:
The patch below attempts to give users an idea to try before they rush
to report a bug. For example:
waiting 120 seconds for server to start: not ok
giving up after 121 secs. If you think that your system
is slow or overloaded try again with a
David Wheeler wrote:
On Mar 4, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Stas Bekman wrote:
The patch below attempts to give users an idea to try before they rush
to report a bug. For example:
waiting 120 seconds for server to start: not ok
giving up after 121 secs. If you think that your system
is slow or overloaded
On Mar 4, 2004, at 5:09 PM, Stas Bekman wrote:
Not in this case. T-H wasn't called yet. It gets called only after
server successfully starts.
Ah, right, okay.
If you they did:
% make test
but you'd suggest to run:
% ./Build test
not only it'll confuse the user, who aren't aware of Build or t/TEST
David Wheeler wrote:
On Mar 4, 2004, at 5:09 PM, Stas Bekman wrote:
Not in this case. T-H wasn't called yet. It gets called only after
server successfully starts.
Ah, right, okay.
If you they did:
% make test
but you'd suggest to run:
% ./Build test
not only it'll confuse the user, who aren't
Stas Bekman wrote:
Well, you could still say Or repeat the last command with the
-startup_timeout=420 option.
That would work, if the last command was 'make test' or any other wrapper.
s/would/won't/
--
__
Stas Bekman
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
On Thu, 2004-03-04 at 22:21 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
geoff 2004/03/04 14:21:27
Modified:perl-framework/Apache-Test Changes
perl-framework/Apache-Test/lib/Apache TestServer.pm
Log:
$ENV{APACHE_TEST_STARTUP_TIMEOUT} now supersedes
$ENV{APACHE_TEST_STARTUP_TIMEOUT} now supersedes -startup_timeout
[...]
What's the reason for this change?
it was a follow up from something on modperl@
I almost always expect that command
line arguments supercede env variables.. i.e.
$ CVSROOT=foo cvs -d bar co foo
Bad CVSROOT:
+my $dversion = $self-server-dversion;
+if ($dversion eq '-DAPACHE1') {
that's '-D APACHE1' in current cvs, no?
--Geoff
Geoffrey Young wrote:
+my $dversion = $self-server-dversion;
+if ($dversion eq '-DAPACHE1') {
that's '-D APACHE1' in current cvs, no?
so i saw, when my tests blew up.
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 09:08:28PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
I would like to resurrect an old discussion. About a year and half
ago rbb and wrowe committed a patch for mod_ssl to provide the SSLEngine
upgrade capability. It seems that one of the reasons for not back
porting it to the
Hi,
It's been a while since last release. I'd like to volunteer for
the RM task for 2.0.49, starting the release cycle monday.
Thoughts?
Sander
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
It's been a while since last release. I'd like to volunteer for
the RM task for 2.0.49, starting the release cycle monday.
Thoughts?
yes, way too many fixes building up
a couple of nags:
There are some very simple mod_isapi fixes waiting for a backport, needing
Joe Orton wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:58:04AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Friday, March 5, 2004 12:53 AM -0800 Justin Erenkrantz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doesn't that mean that ap_config.h needs to set NONBLOCK_WHEN_MULTI_LISTEN
for the AIX 5.2 case? -- justin
Realizing of
hi all. a few win32 things :)
I'm trying to get 2.0.48 to compile using VC++ 5.0 (sp1) on win2k (sp4) and
am having a few issues. yeah, I know it's old, but I happen to have it
around and it's all I have :) anyway, since I'm not a windows guy, some of
this might be common knowledge, but I
Geoffrey Young wrote:
I seem to recall there being a perl script to convert the 6.0 project files to 5.0 format. If it exists, it
will be in the source distribution. Perhaps it is in 1.3 distro? No time to check now.
Bill
Geoffrey Young wrote:
hi all. a few win32 things :)
I'm trying to get 2.0.48 to compile using VC++ 5.0 (sp1) on win2k (sp4) and
am having a few issues. yeah, I know it's old, but I happen to have it
around and it's all I have :) anyway, since I'm not a windows guy, some of
this might be
At 09:23 AM 3/5/2004, Steve Hay wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
I'm trying to get 2.0.48 to compile using VC++ 5.0 (sp1) on win2k (sp4) and
am having a few issues. yeah, I know it's old, but I happen to have it
around and it's all I have :) anyway, since I'm not a windows guy, some of
this might be
Brad I'm plus 1, especially if we can cause libwww to instigate this connection
mode for httpd-test and prove that it behaves per the RFC convention.
But I have a better proposal - let us simply move back the entire mod_ssl 2.1
back to 2.0. Only binary compat issues would need review. But too
--On Friday, March 5, 2004 12:20 AM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I have a better proposal - let us simply move back the entire mod_ssl 2.1
back to 2.0. Only binary compat issues would need review. But too many
good things have happened on 2.1 to this specific
I would really like to get the TLS/SSL upgrade functionality into the
2.0.49 release. If Sander is wanting to start the relase on Monday, I
would like to do whatever is easiest to get this patch in.
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business
Brad Nicholes wrote:
I would really like to get the TLS/SSL upgrade functionality into the
2.0.49 release. If Sander is wanting to start the relase on Monday, I
would like to do whatever is easiest to get this patch in.
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading
-Original Message-
From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SNIP]
--On Friday, March 5, 2004 12:20 AM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I have a better proposal - let us simply move back the
entire mod_ssl 2.1
back to 2.0. Only binary compat issues
At 11:11 AM 3/5/2004, Brad Nicholes wrote:
I would really like to get the TLS/SSL upgrade functionality into the
2.0.49 release. If Sander is wanting to start the relase on Monday, I
would like to do whatever is easiest to get this patch in.
-1 - too big a change too late in the cycle. +1 for
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 09:23 AM 3/5/2004, Steve Hay wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
- lastly, is it possible/practical to have httpd 2.0 and 2.1 CVS snapshots
include the win foo so I can attempt a fairly recent version of everything?
I'll second that request.
We
At 11:19 AM 3/5/2004, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SNIP]
--On Friday, March 5, 2004 12:20 AM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I have a better proposal - let us simply move back the
entire
It's currently at:
http://www.microsoft.com/msdownload/platformsdk/sdkupdate/home.htm
although MS seem to change most of their links every week ;)
ugh. I found that but wasn't using msie so the js errors kept be from
seeing the dropdowns.
I don't think you need the Platform SDK
At 11:32 AM 3/5/2004, Steve Hay wrote:
How do you build on the command line from the .dsp/.dsw's?
The win_compiling.html document that Geoff referred to explains either
using Makefile.win from the command-line (which presumably requires the
.mak files), or else using the .dsp/.dsw files from
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
uh wrong. with /debug incremental yes is the default but you have
to pound it into the msdev's head. please fix/revert.
-# ... /dll /incremental:no /debug /machine:I386
/base:@os\win32\BaseAddr.ref,libhttpd.dll /opt:ref
+# ... /dll /debug /machine:I386
From: Allan Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 7:38 PM
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
uh wrong. with /debug incremental yes is the default but you have
to pound it into the msdev's head. please fix/revert.
-# ... /dll /incremental:no /debug /machine:I386
My apologies if this is better done on the user group, but I've been
reading Apache source code and trying to understand the following.
Is there any way to signal mod_deflate that a particular response
should not be deflated when:
the URL of the request is identical to other cases that
I hate even including the links as they are staled often.
yeah.
but here's a patch anyway that at least matches my recent experience. if it
looks ok to the people that use the platform regularly I'll hand it over to
httpd-docs.
--Geoff
blarg. patch attached
Geoffrey Young wrote:
I hate even including the links as they are staled often.
yeah.
but here's a patch anyway that at least matches my recent experience. if it
looks ok to the people that use the platform regularly I'll hand it over to
httpd-docs.
--Geoff
At 12:37 PM 3/5/2004, Allan Edwards wrote:
Looks like MSDEV fooness to me. I changed nothing in the project except
adding the eoc file but I can't coax MSDEV into including /incremental:no
in the dsp even though it *is* there in the Link Project Options box.
this is why I always add sources (in
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 7:43 PM
At 12:37 PM 3/5/2004, Allan Edwards wrote:
Looks like MSDEV fooness to me. I changed nothing in the project except
adding the eoc file but I can't coax MSDEV into including /incremental:no
in the dsp
Jess Holle wrote:
My apologies if this is better done on the user group, but I've been
reading Apache source code and trying to understand the following.
Is there any way to signal mod_deflate that a particular response should
not be deflated when:
1. the URL of the request is
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
My apologies if this is better done on the user group, but I've been
reading Apache source code and trying to understand the following.
Is there any way to signal mod_deflate that a particular response should
not be deflated when:
1.
36 matches
Mail list logo
