On Tue, Feb 5, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:41:39AM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
I mentioned in the bug that the signal handler could cause undefined
behaviour, but I'm not sure now whether that is true. On Linux I can
On Friday 30 May 2008, Paul Querna wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21137 has
been in Debian testing and unstable for about 6 months without
problems. It is not an elegant solution but it works. Considering
that is is not clear how an elegant solution would look
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Stefan Fritsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 30 May 2008, Paul Querna wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21137 has
been in Debian testing and unstable for about 6 months without
problems. It is not an elegant solution but it
Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Bugs as grave as this one are not acceptable in Debian packages for
extended periods of time.
Then change your default webserver to lighttpd.
I'm sure its bug free.
HTH.
-Paul
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:29:32 +0200
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bugs as grave as this one are not acceptable in Debian packages for
extended periods of time. The bug report has been open for over 1
year, I have attached my patch on 2007-11-16. It is marked as
critical since
Nick Kew wrote:
As for maintaining local patches, he's not the only one doing that,
and our license clearly allows it. Licenses that restrict such
things seem to be widely disliked: c.f. DJB/qmail.
We've made a concerted effort to supply all patches back, yet we always
find that we maintain
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 03:34:21PM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
Stefan Fritsch wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21137 has been in
Debian testing and unstable for about 6 months without problems. It is not
an elegant solution but it works. Considering that is is not
On Friday 30 May 2008, Nick Kew wrote:
I don't think I share your implied view about how grave this is.
I guess this is the main (or only?) problem with this patch/bug. I got
quite a few people complaining about it and therefore I wanted to fix
it.
I respect your opinion, but when
Stefan Fritsch wrote:
My mail in January already mentioned that the patch is in Debian, but
I guess now after the openssl debacle people are more sensitive. If
you think it would help, I could go through our patches and post a
list of the non-Debian specific ones here.
I think that would be
On Thursday 29 May 2008, Jim Jagielski wrote:
for 2.2.9, it would be nice to fix the epoll issue PR 42829,
IMHO. The patch in the bug report works, even if it may not be
the perfect solution.
From what I can see, there is no real patch available or fully
tested enough to warrant anything
On May 29, 2008, at 4:46 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Thursday 29 May 2008, Jim Jagielski wrote:
for 2.2.9, it would be nice to fix the epoll issue PR 42829,
IMHO. The patch in the bug report works, even if it may not be
the perfect solution.
From what I can see, there is no real patch
On Thursday 29 May 2008, Jim Jagielski wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21137 has
been in Debian testing and unstable for about 6 months without
problems. It is not an elegant solution but it works. Considering
that is is not clear how an elegant solution would
Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Thursday 29 May 2008, Jim Jagielski wrote:
for 2.2.9, it would be nice to fix the epoll issue PR 42829,
IMHO. The patch in the bug report works, even if it may not be
the perfect solution.
From what I can see, there is no real patch available or fully
tested enough to
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:41:39AM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
I mentioned in the bug that the signal handler could cause undefined
behaviour, but I'm not sure now whether that is true. On Linux I can
reproduce some cases where this will happen, which are all due to
Joe Orton wrote:
I mentioned in the bug that the signal handler could cause undefined
behaviour, but I'm not sure now whether that is true. On Linux I can
reproduce some cases where this will happen, which are all due to
well-defined behaviour:
1) with some (default on Linux) accept mutex
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:42:05PM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Hi,
this bug can be quite annoying because of the resources used by the hung
processes. It happens e.g. under Linux when epoll is used.
The patch from http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42829#c14
has been in
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:42:05PM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
this bug can be quite annoying because of the resources used by the hung
processes. It happens e.g. under Linux when epoll is used.
The patch from http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42829#c14
has been in Debian
Hi,
this bug can be quite annoying because of the resources used by the hung
processes. It happens e.g. under Linux when epoll is used.
The patch from http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42829#c14
has been in Debian unstable/Ubuntu hardy for several weeks and there have
not been
18 matches
Mail list logo
