On 05 Mar 2012, at 8:14 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> This vote has another 15 hours to run. I'm personally -0 for adopting
> this module at all, it seems to run afoul of some design considerations
> that have excluded other modules in the past, such as mod_macro, from
> becoming part of httpd
I can reproduce this on SuSE Linux Enterprise 11sp1 (x86_64,
2.6.32.12-0.7-xen) and Ubuntu 11.04 (x86_64, 2.6.38.x).
- Ursprüngliche Mail -
Von: "Jim Jagielski"
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Gesendet: Montag, 5. März 2012 19:15:03
Betreff: Re: httpd 2.4.1 and mod_slotmem_shm / mod_proxy_bala
On 3/2/2012 12:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> A proposal to adopt mod_policy is attached.
>
> [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
> [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
> [ ] Option 3: do not adopt
72 hours have passed, consensus indicates that this module is accepted into
the httpd
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> A proposal to adopt mod_combine is attached.
>
> [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
> [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
[X] Option 3: do not adopt
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:01 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 2:16 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>>>
>>> Mod_noloris was a quick&dirty fix to a rather serious problem. It was
>>> superseded when Stefan produced a better fix, so there's
What system is this... I'm assuming that your shm impl does an
actual file connection for the shm instance...
On Mar 5, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Zisis Lianas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think there is an issue in mod_slotmem_shm / mod_proxy_balancer
> with httpd 2.4.x when building and installing as root, but
This vote has another 15 hours to run. I'm personally -0 for adopting
this module at all, it seems to run afoul of some design considerations
that have excluded other modules in the past, such as mod_macro, from
becoming part of httpd. That there are multiple static resources to
be presented as s
On 3/1/2012 12:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
> A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached.
>
> [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
> [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
> [ ] Option 3: do not adopt
72 hours have passed; the firehose module and utility, as committed, are
accepted
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:01 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 2:16 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>>
>> Mod_noloris was a quick&dirty fix to a rather serious problem. It was
>> superseded when Stefan produced a better fix, so there's no
>> expectation now that mod_noloris will ever 'graduate'.
On 3/2/2012 2:16 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> Mod_noloris was a quick&dirty fix to a rather serious problem. It was
> superseded when Stefan produced a better fix, so there's no
> expectation now that mod_noloris will ever 'graduate'. I don't think
> that's a model for most incoming modules!
In that
The files that you see in strace are not mutex files. Hence the mutex directive
cannot
work here. The correct fix would be IMHO another directive (either for
mod_proxy or better
for mod_proxy_balancer) to allow defining a directory where these shared memory
files should be created.
Regards
Rüdi
Hi,
I think there is an issue in mod_slotmem_shm / mod_proxy_balancer
with httpd 2.4.x when building and installing as root, but trying
to run httpd as standard unix-user.
Scenario:
my httpd is installed as 'root' in /root/httpd-2.4.1/, permissions
root:root/0755. When I create a 'user' httpd.con
Which does not work for 2.4.1 Windows, see my other post.
Windows users has to load the handler form AL.
-Original Message-
From: IgorGalić
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 2:50 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: httpd 2.4.1 vs mod_whatkilledus
- Original Message -
Am 0
- Original Message -
>
>
> Am 04.03.2012 02:35, schrieb Igor Galić:
> > Hey folks,
> > or rather: Jeff :)
> >
> > I'm finally getting around to updating my stack to httpd 2.4.1
> > (and PHP 5.4) and some things are breaking.
> > mod_whatkilledus doesn't build with 2.4.1
>
> you are aware
14 matches
Mail list logo
