Joe Orton wrote:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 12:48:50AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Saturday, November 6, 2004 8:28 AM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -125,6 +125,8 @@
+0: BrianP, Aaron (mutex contention is looking better with the
latest code, let's continue tuning and
It's not Linux but here is a piece of information that should help.
NetWare is a thread only environment which means that we have been
shipping and running all of the standard modules since day one with
really no report of any threading related issues. I can't speak for any
third party modules
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 12:48:50AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Saturday, November 6, 2004 8:28 AM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > @@ -125,6 +125,8 @@
> > +0: BrianP, Aaron (mutex contention is looking better with the
> > latest code, let's continue tuning a
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> MPM on a platform that does not support it, the build process silently
> switches to prefork (or whatever the default is for the platform, I guess)
> now, I haven't seen this myself, so I don't want to propagate FUD, but if
> it's true I might suggest th
> Seems reasonable to do so. 2.0 was our first threaded release - making
> a threaded MPM by default (if available) for 2.2 seems fine by me. --
> justin
agreed :)
however, something that I heard recently is that if you specify a threaded
MPM on a platform that does not support it, the build p
--On Saturday, November 6, 2004 8:28 AM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -125,6 +125,8 @@
+0: BrianP, Aaron (mutex contention is looking better with the
latest code, let's continue tuning and testing), rederpj, jim
-0: Lars
+
+ pquerna: Do we want to
You are correct that a patch based on mod_authnz_ldap.c won't apply
cleanly to mod_auth_ldap.c because of various differences in the code
base. But the patch is fairly self-contained meaning that the same
chunk of code can easily be copied from mod_authnz_ldap.c and pasted
into mod_auth_ldap.c w
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:16:55PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
> +*) mod_authnz_ldap: Added the directive "Requires ldap-attribute" that
> + allows the module to only authorize a user if the attribute value
> + specified matches the value of the user object. PR 31913
>
At 05:02 PM 10/10/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +*) Allow for the use of --with-module=foo:bar where the ./modules/foo
> + directory is a local addition to the ./modules directory.
> + Assumes, of course, that the required files are in ./modules/foo,
> + but makes it ea
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:20:02 -0400, Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:39:04 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr.
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can we quickly identify what else was broken to roll out 2.0.52
> > in the next day or two? I presume this too was 2.0.51 specific
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:39:04 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we quickly identify what else was broken to roll out 2.0.52
> in the next day or two? I presume this too was 2.0.51 specific?
it is my understanding that the mod_mem_cache double-free was a
regression introd
Can we quickly identify what else was broken to roll out 2.0.52
in the next day or two? I presume this too was 2.0.51 specific?
Bill
>jorton 2004/09/22 01:57:30
>
> Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
> Log:
> Find a third 2.0.51 regression THIS WEEK and win a FREE subscr
On 22 Sep 2004 08:57:30 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> jorton 2004/09/22 01:57:30
>
> Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
> Log:
> Find a third 2.0.51 regression THIS WEEK and win a FREE subscription
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED] OFFER ENDS SOON.
mod_
--On Monday, September 13, 2004 5:13 PM +0100 Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On platforms with sizeof(int) == sizeof(apr_size_t), the change is a
noop, so no break there.
On other platforms, any indirect lock records which have already been
written to the database by the <=2.0.50 code will
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 03:56:19PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- STATUS 13 Sep 2004 15:39:57 - 1.751.2.1044
> +++ STATUS 13 Sep 2004 15:56:19 - 1.751.2.1045
> @@ -75,16 +75,17 @@
>
>*) mod_dav_fs: Fix indirect lock record handling on 64-bit platforms.
>
* Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2004 18:04:20 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > -*) Allocate buffer memory from the temp_pool rather than the stack
> > to- avoid over-running a fixed length stack while evaluating
> > nested- in
On 26 Aug 2004 18:04:20 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -*) Allocate buffer memory from the temp_pool rather than the stack to
> - avoid over-running a fixed length stack while evaluating nested
> - include directives.
> - server/config.c: r1.1
* Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 06:55:52PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > @@ -184,6 +184,7 @@
> > ssl_engine_kernel.c r1.107
> > ssl_private.h r1.7
> > +1: trawick, jorton
> > +nd: Is it wise to backport XXX cod
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 06:55:52PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> @@ -184,6 +184,7 @@
> ssl_engine_kernel.c r1.107
> ssl_private.h r1.7
> +1: trawick, jorton
> +nd: Is it wise to backport XXX code into the stable?
Which bit is XXX code, did you put
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> + nd: oops... This already went into the include recursion stopper
> + backport. Any objections? ;-)
I'm very sorry for this accident.
If we get another +1, this entry can be deleted...
nd
--
package Hacker::Perl::Another::Just;print
[EMAIL PROT
jerenkrantz2004/08/04 12:57:30
> --- STATUS4 Aug 2004 19:31:58 - 1.751.2.967
> +++ STATUS4 Aug 2004 19:57:29 - 1.751.2.968
> @@ -94,15 +94,19 @@
>modules/experimental/util_ldap.c: 1.36
> +1: minfrin (this requires the apr-util LDAP overhaul t
On 4 Aug 2004 19:57:30 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> jerenkrantz2004/08/04 12:57:30
>
> Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
> Log:
> Hey, look, I can cast votes!
no way, what happened to the mysterious authentication which allowed
only a small num
Brad Nicholes wrote:
Do we care about backporting the overhaul into the 2.0 tree? I
don't see that it really buys us anything unless you think that it is
necessary in order to get auth_ldap out of experimental. After I get
the latest util-ldap fixes backported, that should get mod_auth_ldap
w
Do we care about backporting the overhaul into the 2.0 tree? I
don't see that it really buys us anything unless you think that it is
necessary in order to get auth_ldap out of experimental. After I get
the latest util-ldap fixes backported, that should get mod_auth_ldap
working in 2.0. Once
At 08:36 PM 7/29/2004, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>I'd be surprised if it were even possible for an independent
>module to allocate a scoreboard struct, but it has been a while
>since I looked at that code.
I think you are right - allocation is in control of httpd itself. Mladen
wants to be able to '
On Thursday, July 29, 2004, at 05:58 AM, André Malo wrote:
* "Mladen Turk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
/* Scoreboard file, if there is one */
#ifndef DEFAULT_SCOREBOARD
@@ -118,6 +119,7 @@
typedef struct {
int server_limit;
int
Hi all,
Since there was some concerns regarding binary compatibility, here is the
patch that uses different approach.
1. Revert the patch with changes to scoreboard structures
2. Add an extra hook that is run during ap_reopen_scoreboard with detached
param.
We will use our own shm, opening by ho
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Although
> we create the pointer-pointer logic in the children to avoid
> this, it's still possible that the code would break some modules.
>
> I can't envision a case where any of the scoreboard entries
> are allocated outside of our scoreboard.c code.
>
OK,
At 10:26 AM 7/29/2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>If you changed worker_score, it would still have broken (or if you change
>balancers in the future.) Agents reviewing the scoreboard are presuming
>scoreboard_entry *psb can be accessed as psb[0..n] and that -will- be
>broken with any size/alig
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >
> >Moving the lb_limit to the end of the struct will not break
> the binary
> >compatibility. Correct?
>
> Yes, in the case of global_score, that would be safer. It
> seems that the additional lb_score 's element point was better placed.
>
> If you changed w
At 02:24 AM 7/29/2004, Mladen Turk wrote:
>
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> >
>> > /* Scoreboard file, if there is one */
>> > #ifndef DEFAULT_SCOREBOARD
>> > @@ -118,6 +119,7 @@
>> > typedef struct {
>> > int server_limit;
>> > int thread_limit;
>> >
André Malo wrote:
>
> > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > >
> > > This definitely breaks binary compatibility.
> > >
> > Moving the lb_limit to the end of the struct will not break
> the binary
> > compatibility. Correct?
>
> Not Correct. It *may* be the case. Depending on who allocates
> th
* "Mladen Turk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > >
> > > /* Scoreboard file, if there is one */
> > > #ifndef DEFAULT_SCOREBOARD
> > > @@ -118,6 +119,7 @@
> > > typedef struct {
> > > int server_limit;
> > > int thread_limit
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > /* Scoreboard file, if there is one */
> > #ifndef DEFAULT_SCOREBOARD
> > @@ -118,6 +119,7 @@
> > typedef struct {
> > int server_limit;
> > int thread_limit;
> > +int lb_limit;
> > ap_scoreb
At 05:55 PM 7/28/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>minfrin 2004/07/28 15:55:15
>
> Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
> Log:
> Propose a backport
>
> +*) Add load balancer support to the scoreboard in preparation for
> + load balancing support in mod_proxy.
> +
At 07:45 PM 7/1/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>minfrin 2004/07/01 17:45:43
>
> 1.751.2.942 +6 -1 httpd-2.0/STATUS
>
> +*) Add the NOTICE file to the rpm spec file in compliance with the Apache
> + v2.0 license.
> + build/rpm/httpd.spec.in: 1.6
> + +1: minfrin
At what cost (in terms of security) does this gain in performance, etc
come at?
You also mention something about a marshalling layer. In general terms,
what is this and how trustworthy/foolproof is it?
--
Wayne S. Frazee
"Any sufficiently developed bug is indistinguishable f
Just to provide a little background on NetWare (and if you don't
care, don't read any further). NetWare is not your standard general
purpose operating system. NetWare was origninally designed and built to
be a high performance, highly scalable and very secure file and print
server. Over the y
Loading a process in its own address space require that all of the
modules that it has direct dependencies on, have also to be loaded
in that same address space. This is an expensive process, especially
when it comes to CGIs that are loaded to serve their content and
then unloaded.
A marshal
Uh, then may I follow up with another stupid, obvious question, if using
another address space insulates the parent application and, in some
cases, the server from a crash resulting from an unstable module, why do
they all use the same address space on novell? Does this compromise a
security measu
>Can I ask the obvious, then? When would a separate address space>be desirable for an apr-based app to invoke a child/forked process?
It is a desirable option mainly for developers using unstable modules
to ensure the child process will not kill the parent application, or the server,
in ca
At 12:00 PM 6/22/2004, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>>What if the default in APR is to run in a separate address space*, and
>in
>>places in Apache where on NetWare the child process should run in the
>same
>>address space there is a call to the proper procattr manipulator to
>override
>>the default so
>What if the default in APR is to run in a separate address space*, and
in
>places in Apache where on NetWare the child process should run in the
same
>address space there is a call to the proper procattr manipulator to
override
>the default so that the child runs in the same address space? (an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
clar2004/06/21 12:11:56
Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
Log:
Removing bb proposal since it will require a major number bump
Revision ChangesPath
No revision
No revision
1.751.2.932 +1 -12
>-Original Message-
>From: Joe Orton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 2:02 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
>
>For precedent there have already been two binary
>backwards-incompatible changes made o
For precedent there have already been two binary backwards-incompatible
changes made on the 2.0 branch of such "exposed but really private"
interfaces:
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd-2.0/modules/ssl/mod_ssl.h?r1=1.122.2.5&r2=1.122.2.6&only_with_tag=APACHE_2_0_BRANCH
http://cvs.apache.org/
> > The entire contents of mod_ssl.h just cannot be considered a public API,
> > that's too much, even the config structures are in there. The only
> > thing that's usable from other modules is the optional hook, and in
> > reality that declaration just gets cut'n'pasted anyway (even by
> > third-
At 05:43 AM 6/12/2004, Joe Orton wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 09:54:56AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> --- STATUS 11 Jun 2004 21:05:21 - 1.751.2.920
>> +++ STATUS 12 Jun 2004 09:54:56 - 1.751.2.921
>> @@ -74,8 +74,10 @@
>>
>>*) mod_ssl: Remove some unus
Joe Orton wrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 09:54:56AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- STATUS 11 Jun 2004 21:05:21 - 1.751.2.920
+++ STATUS 12 Jun 2004 09:54:56 - 1.751.2.921
@@ -74,8 +74,10 @@
*) mod_ssl: Remove some unused functions (after CAN-2004-0488 fix is applied)
* Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 09:54:56AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > --- STATUS11 Jun 2004 21:05:21 - 1.751.2.920
> > +++ STATUS12 Jun 2004 09:54:56 - 1.751.2.921
> > @@ -74,8 +74,10 @@
> >
> >*) mod_ssl
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 09:54:56AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- STATUS 11 Jun 2004 21:05:21 - 1.751.2.920
> +++ STATUS 12 Jun 2004 09:54:56 - 1.751.2.921
> @@ -74,8 +74,10 @@
>
>*) mod_ssl: Remove some unused functions (after CAN-2004-0488 fix is appli
* Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 03:05:45PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >jorton 2004/05/05 09:29:59
> >
> > > Index: STATUS
> >
> > > *) Readd suexec setuid and user check (now APR supports it)
> > >os/unix/u
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 03:05:45PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >jorton 2004/05/05 09:29:59
>
> > Index: STATUS
>
> > *) Readd suexec setuid and user check (now APR supports it)
> >os/unix/unixd.c: r1.69
> > +1: nd, trawick
> > +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jorton 2004/05/05 09:29:59
Index: STATUS
*) Readd suexec setuid and user check (now APR supports it)
os/unix/unixd.c: r1.69
+1: nd, trawick
+ +1: jorton, if surrounded with #ifdef APR_USETID to retain
+ compatibility
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Joe Orton wrote:
> > + nd asks: Sure, you want to drop the return code of ap_pass_brigade?
>
> No, not particularly, but that's what the original code did and the
> above change makes no difference to that AFAICT. Does dropping the
> return code cause Real Bugs?
It
* Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 06:51:50PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > @@ -200,10 +202,11 @@
> >*) mod_dav: Send an EOS at the end of the multistatus brigade.
> >
> > http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd-2.0/modules/dav/main/mod_dav.
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 06:51:50PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> @@ -200,10 +202,11 @@
>*) mod_dav: Send an EOS at the end of the multistatus brigade.
>
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd-2.0/modules/dav/main/mod_dav.c?r1=1.105&r2=1.106
> +1: jorton
> +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ben 2004/03/28 20:00:17
Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
Log:
Add mod_log_forensic...
+++ STATUS 29 Mar 2004 04:00:16 - 1.751.2.780
@@ -304,6 +304,9 @@
CURRENT VOTES:
+* Backport mod_log_forensic.
+ +1: be
--Original Message-
>From: Joe Orton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:55 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
>
>
>On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:14:00PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> madhum 2004/03/0
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:14:00PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> madhum 2004/03/09 10:14:00
>
> Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
> Log:
> Propose a backport (for mod_rewrite to recognize SSL variables)
Thanks for committing that Madhu. The mod_ssl.h->ssl_private
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gregames2004/02/26 12:12:13
Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
Log:
vote on exception hook backport.
review was fine, extra credit for cleaning up the duplication of signal
handling between the mpms. Tested on RH9 w/prefork - no regressio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
rederpj 2004/02/04 06:37:40
Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
Log:
(sheepishly) add a vote... (darn, missed the warning scrolling by. Good catch,
thanks).
we're up to 4 now... I'll commit the fix.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd-2.0/modules/metadata/mod_expires.c?r1=1.45&r2=1.46
Hrm. The whole check is probably segfaulting with something like
ExpiresByType text
isn't it? (Sorry for so late jumping in).
nd
Joe Orton wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:48:33AM +0100, André Malo wrote:
* Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:28:28PM +0100, André Malo wrote:
Hmm, and then? I'd see it as a workaround for buggy clients like the
"redirect-carefully" variable.
It's a matter of
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:48:33AM +0100, André Malo wrote:
> * Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:28:28PM +0100, André Malo wrote:
> > > Hmm, and then? I'd see it as a workaround for buggy clients like the
> > > "redirect-carefully" variable.
> >
> > It's a ma
* Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:28:28PM +0100, André Malo wrote:
> > Hmm, and then? I'd see it as a workaround for buggy clients like the
> > "redirect-carefully" variable.
>
> It's a matter of degree. Just how many clients are broken, and what
> percentage of
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:28:28PM +0100, André Malo wrote:
> * Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:04:38AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >* mod_dav: Reject requests including fragment part in the
> > >Request-URI.
> > >
> > > http:
* Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:04:38AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >* mod_dav: Reject requests including fragment part in the
> >Request-URI.
> >
> > http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd-2.0/modules/dav/main/mod_dav.c?r1=1.102
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:04:38AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>* mod_dav: Reject requests including fragment part in the Request-URI.
>
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd-2.0/modules/dav/main/mod_dav.c?r1=1.102&r2=1.103
> PR: 21779
> +1: jorton
> +
>* unescaped error logs seem to be essential for some folks
> backport -DAP_UNSAFE_ERROR_LOG_UNESCAPED to 2.0 and 1.3
>server/log.c: r1.139, r1.140
> -+1: nd
> ++1: nd, stas
should this get another vote, I have patches for 2.0 and 1.3 ready.
--Geoff
Index
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 09:09:42PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> it will be fine anyway :) it is okay to fail the test, as it just
> brings a few extra instructions... it is only bad to pass the test
> when in fact it should be failed
>
> some number of boxes will start failing the test now, and
On Dec 28, 2003, at 7:03 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 04:10:04PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:59 PM + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+ PR 24469, broken reverse lookups with IPv4-mapped addrs on old
OS X
+The autoconf check added
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 04:10:04PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:59 PM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > + PR 24469, broken reverse lookups with IPv4-mapped addrs on old OS X
> > +The autoconf check added between 2.0.47 and 2.0.48 isn't
> > +suf
--On Saturday, December 27, 2003 7:51 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Happy holidays!!!
A good way to end the year by closing as many backports as possible. ;-)
@@ -209,7 +185,8 @@
modules/generators/mod_cgid.c r1.152, r1.161
server/mpm_common.c r1.111
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jerenkrantz2003/12/26 23:41:28
Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
Log:
Reflect merged backports (those that I casted at least the 3rd +1 for), and
cast some votes on those with less than 3 +1s.
Happy holidays!!!
Index: STATUS
@@ -209,7 +
--On Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:59 PM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ PR 24469, broken reverse lookups with IPv4-mapped addrs on old OS X
+The autoconf check added between 2.0.47 and 2.0.48 isn't
+sufficient for catching the OS X problem, because building the
+IPv4 numeric
> A patch should be easy, but I have no system to test on (upgraded to Panther).
> I'm a bit nervous about doing a name lookup at configure time anyway.
I have a 10.1 box that I use as a web server. I have not been upgrading that
machine for several reasons, and can use it for testing stuff out. I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ PR 24469, broken reverse lookups with IPv4-mapped addrs on old OS X
+The autoconf check added between 2.0.47 and 2.0.48 isn't
+sufficient for catching the OS X problem, because building the
+IPv4 numeric address string from IPv4-mapped address would
+ nd replies: But if it can't be 0 the alternatives thereafter
make no
+ sense anymore, right?
Good point, so if that is true then isn't the code in the else part of
ap_get_server_port() also wrong. In other words, ap_default_port()
would never be called if UseCanonicalName
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
> What would r->filename be in this case? IMHO this is totally besides the
> r->filename should not be NULL problem, isn't it?
Yes, it's a separate issue.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> yep. too bad there are so many places in the code where this problem
> appears. i feel like we ought to take the opposite approach and guarantee
> that r->filename is never NULL, but oh well. we've gone down this path
> instead, so this is clearly a correct
Greg Stein wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 09:27:54AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
...
* mod_ssl: Fix a problem setting variables that represent the
- client certificate chain. PR 21397
+ client certificate chain. PR 21371
whoops! I don't even want to know what a woody extensio
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 09:27:54AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>...
> >* mod_ssl: Fix a problem setting variables that represent the
> > - client certificate chain. PR 21397
> > + client certificate chain. PR 21371
>
> whoops! I don't even want to know what a woody extensio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jorton 2003/09/16 06:01:06
Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
Log:
Fix a PR# and vote on tested backports.
Revision ChangesPath
No revision
No revision
1.751.2.470 +6 -6 httpd-2.0/STATUS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jim 2003/08/20 05:10:11
Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
Index: STATUS
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/STATUS,v
retrieving revision 1.751.2.433
retrieving revision 1.7
* William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 05:42 AM 3/27/2003, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>nd 2003/03/26 17:10:59
>>> Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
>>> Log:
>>> I consider these important enough to treat them as showstoppers.
>>
>>> RELEASE SHOWSTO
At 05:42 AM 3/27/2003, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>nd 2003/03/26 17:10:59
>> Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
>> Log:
>> I consider these important enough to treat them as showstoppers.
>
>> RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:
>>
>> +* Forward port: Es
* Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> +* Forward port: Escape special characters (especially control
>> + characters) in mod_log_config to make a clear distinction between
>> + client-supplied strings (with special characters) and server-side
>> + strings. This was already introduced
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nd 2003/03/26 17:10:59
Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
Log:
I consider these important enough to treat them as showstoppers.
RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:
+* Forward port: Escape special characters (especially control
+ chara
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 7:43 PM
> +++ STATUS 7 Mar 2003 18:42:44 - 1.751.2.157
> @@ -74,6 +74,10 @@
> wrowe: yes - it would be cool to have debug flavors in the same
> files as their non-debug versi
--On Thursday, February 27, 2003 12:53 PM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ The problem here is that R-T-C expresses a fundamental
+ DISTRUST of your peers. We had problems stabilizing the
+ code simply because there are numerous interests in the
+
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> +
> + Yes, I'm ranting, and hey, I'm even sober. :-)
>
=:o
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gstein 2003/02/27 04:53:19
Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
Log:
trawick wanted commentary in STATUS rather than on the mailing list.
fine...
I don't care whether commentary on this topic is in STATUS or on the
mailing list (I for one put a
--On Saturday, February 22, 2003 6:46 PM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks you folks and sorry again for the non-sufficient
log entries.
Ah, geez. It's *not* that big of a deal. =) -- justin
On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 05:15:22AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> jerenkrantz2003/02/21 21:15:22
>
> Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
> Log:
> Why is anyone still using SUNOS4? On Apache 2.0? Why?
> Anyway, fill out some more votes.
People are still using Apach
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> stoddard2003/01/30 10:07:17
>
> Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
> Log:
> Done
>
> -* Port stoddard's patch to mod_file_cache to call apr_mmap_dup
> -
> -* mod_file_cache segfault bugfix. PR 16313.
Thanks Bi
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 15:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> stoddard2002/12/10 15:53:50
>
> Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
> Log:
> Looking for votes... Any objections?
> +PATCHES TO PORT FROM 2.1
> +* stoddard: All mod_cache (and related) patches as of 12/10/02
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 26 November 2002 16:23
Hi Jim,
> Just in case, I want to note 2 things:
>
>1. I'm 100% cool. I understand that Bill meant no harm or foul to
> anyone and I apologize for thinking he did.
>2. At no
On Monday, November 25, 2002, at 05:59 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2002, at 04:58 PM, Aaron Bannert wrote:
I guess I just didn't read that much in to it. I just want
to see us move forward without getting bogged down in
misinterpreted emails and already acknowledged mis
Just in case, I want to note 2 things:
1. I'm 100% cool. I understand that Bill meant no harm or foul to
anyone and I apologize for thinking he did.
2. At no time did I become a potty mouth.
(#2 will be funnier to those who attended the Apache Town Meeting :) ).
Cheers!
--
=
1 - 100 of 384 matches
Mail list logo
