On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:11 PM, ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2008 18:04:15 -0300
César Leonardo Blum Silveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
What is the correct way to fill the dsize field in apr_datum_t? I am
not sure whether I should do it like this
What is the condition in sendfile_it_all (core_filters.c) that makes the
looping running more than once? Cause I've made modified it where for the first
loop I only send 4096 Byte of the file (to estimate the throughput) and for
the next looping I send the others of the file (file size minus
Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
Hello all,
The probes can really give a different perspective on production
environments.
The patch has some nastiness to it that I'm sure people would want to
strategize on cleaning up. The main issue being that Apache is
constructed from a bunch of static
I'm back from a few days away and offline, and like to get
the momentum for 2.2.9 back up.
2 main things:
1. There are a number of backport proposals looking
for and waiting for a 3rd +1... if you have time
to look/review/vote, that would be good.
2. Consensus on whether we
On May 6, 2008, at 8:21 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On May 5, 2008, at 9:27 PM, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
The patch has some nastiness to it that I'm sure people would want
to strategize on cleaning up. The main issue being that Apache is
constructed from a bunch of static
If there's a chance to add it, I'm ready to write the doc patch
Nick
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On May 6, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Nick Gearls wrote:
Just a little adding: by adding LoadFile libgcc_s.so.1 in
httpd.conf, I don't have any more file in the chroot (except htdocs
if not in pure
On May 6, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Nick Gearls wrote:
If there's a chance to add it, I'm ready to write the doc patch
Lets get that in there - and then lets (or I'll) backport it - so it
goes into the next release.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On May 6, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Nick Gearls wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. Mai 2008 15:51
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: 2.2.9
I'm back from a few days away and offline, and like to get
the momentum for 2.2.9 back up.
2 main things:
1. There are a number of backport
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Dirk-Willem van Gulik
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. Mai 2008 16:20
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: High security
On May 6, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Nick Gearls wrote:
If there's a chance to add it, I'm ready to write the doc patch
Lets get that in
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Dirk-Willem van Gulik
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. Mai 2008 17:00
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: High security
On May 6, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Nick Gearls wrote:
If there's a chance to add it, I'm ready to write the doc patch
I did below a
On May 6, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Dirk-Willem van Gulik
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. Mai 2008 17:00
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: High security
On May 6, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Nick Gearls wrote:
If there's a chance to add it,
Can you tell me where to find the XML doc file ?
It's not obvious from the site :-(
Thanks,
Nick
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On May 6, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Nick Gearls wrote:
If there's a chance to add it, I'm ready to write the doc patch
Lets get that in there - and then lets (or I'll)
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. Mai 2008 15:51
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: 2.2.9
I'm back from a few days away and offline, and like to get
the
On May 6, 2008, at 8:10 AM, Nick Gearls wrote:
Can you tell me where to find the XML doc file ?
It's not obvious from the site :-(
Check out the httpd trunk:
svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk httpd
and the XML file we're talking about will be
Hmmm at least in apr-1.3.0 (HEAD), sendfile in Darwin still
seems broken... getting:
[Tue May 06 13:35:26 2008] [crit] [Tue May 06 13:35:26 2008] file
core_filters.c,
line 391, assertion total_bytes_left 0 tmplen 0 failed
from the test framework for httpd:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Will see how the latest 1.2.x does...
Uhm - 1.2.x deliberately disables sendfile detection on Darwin.
On May 6, 2008, at 1:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Will see how the latest 1.2.x does...
Uhm - 1.2.x deliberately disables sendfile detection on Darwin.
Yep, and so the test runs cleanly (confirmed)...
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 1:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+note type=warningtitleNote/title
+ pThis directive will be ignored in a name-based virtual host
context./p
+/note
That should just be an ordinary note with no type=.
warning is for really-important stuff like
I should have some cycles to dig deeper on this tomorrow...
On Tue, 6 May 2008 09:50:41 -0400
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Consensus on whether we ship with APR 1.2.x or 1.3.x...
My pref would be 1.3.
-1.
The target audience for APR is tech-savvy: developers and
integrators. HTTPD has a larger and more mixed audience.
I'd say
Nick Kew wrote:
The target audience for APR is tech-savvy: developers and
integrators. HTTPD has a larger and more mixed audience.
I'd say that puts on us a greater burden of care, including
crucially a proper review of changes in 1.3, before
bundling it in a release version of HTTPD.
I
Nick Kew wrote:
If the docs are not clear to you, I think that demonstrates
the need for further review. What is unclear about
¨The underlying library doesn't support prepared statements,
so the driver emulates them, and the untrusted input is
merged into the SQL statement.¨
I
22 matches
Mail list logo
