Hi there,
I am seeking for a developer to commit a patch Joshua Slive kindly
provided. Please have a look at
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18156
and check out whether it can be commited or not. I think this is an
important patch closing an annoying bug and therefore should
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
Hi,
Now that apache-1.3 is moving to SVN, how about moving httpd-2.x
as well?
Sander
* Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that apache-1.3 is moving to SVN, how about moving httpd-2.x
as well?
IMHO we should finish the 1.3-move first, look how it does, how the developers
deal with it and then think about moving 2.x :-)
nd
--
Da fällt mir ein, wieso gibt es eigentlich
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:35:13AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
There's only one thing for us to decide; how to define the layout
under httpd/ in the SVN repository.
e.g.
.../
httpd/
trunk/
branches/
1.3.x/
2.0.x/
tags/
2.0.49/
...
1.3.31/
Actually the repeated one I hear is:
Can we have a single resource / URL pattern authencticated
against multiple LDAPs (e.g. A, B, C,...) such that if user U is not
defined in A, B will be searched, and so forth. The first LDAP
containing an entry found for the user would be bound against and
On Sun, 2004-05-23 at 15:28 -0500, Jess Holle wrote:
Actually the repeated one I hear is:
Can we have a single resource / URL pattern authencticated
against multiple LDAPs (e.g. A, B, C,...) such that if user U
is not defined in A, B will be searched, and so forth. The
Paul Querna wrote:
This would be an interesting application of the AuthN framework stuff in
2.1.0. It is much easier to setup fallback authentication stuff.
Speaking of that, Is there any reason mod_auth_ldap hasn't been moved
over to the AuthN/Z Framework?
I think partly because nobody has
Hi all,
The above bug was posted about LDAP support not building on Solaris due
to ldap.h and lber.h being declared in the wrong order.
This patch has been committed to apr-util v1.0, what needs to be done to
get it committed to apr-util v0.9?
Regards,
Graham
--
---
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:48:52PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
The above bug was posted about LDAP support not building on Solaris due
to ldap.h and lber.h being declared in the wrong order.
This patch has been committed to apr-util v1.0, what needs to be done to
get it committed to
Hello fellows,
Im having lots of trouble trying
to fix an old bug on 2.0.46. Im a hosting provider and to serve both asp (served
by a windows server on my local network) and php,perl,java,etc (server by linux
server with apache) on the same site), I use rewrite rules to *.asp for a
On Sun, 2004-05-23 at 15:01, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
Sounds good. We should ponder a way to set up closed branches for
security patches. Maybe they could be protected on a case-by-case basis,
or we create a 4th top-level directory security-patches.
Woo. I just wanted to point out how
Sorry for replying my own mail, but I got some
news:
Applied the patch I mentioned on mod_dir, its
stopping on the right DirectoryIndex now, look:
200.142.70.34 - - [23/May/2004:21:56:49 --0300]
[rehashpages.com/sid#80aa3f8][rid#819d540/subreq](3) applying pattern
'(.*)\.asp$' to uri
14 matches
Mail list logo
