> (though with proxy
> issues on HEAD mod_rewrite [P] stuff is still completely broken).
yeah. if I have the time I'll try to track down exactly the revision that
caused this failure so it can also be added to showstoppers, if merely so
somebody takes the time to explicitly address it. not sur
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:10:32 +0100, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 05:23:12PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > --- mod_rewrite.c 13 Oct 2004 17:12:09 - 1.135.2.32
> > +++ mod_rewrite.c 13 Oct 2004 17:23:12 - 1.135.2.33
> > @@ -1477,9 +1
* Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> can I get some votes for:
>
> Index: modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c
> ===
> RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.135.2.33
> diff -u -r1.135.2.33
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 05:23:12PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- mod_rewrite.c 13 Oct 2004 17:12:09 - 1.135.2.32
> +++ mod_rewrite.c 13 Oct 2004 17:23:12 - 1.135.2.33
> @@ -1477,9 +1477,17 @@
> * remember the current filename before rewriting for later c
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:18:48 -0400, Geoffrey Young
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > trawick 2004/09/18 09:18:27
> >
> > Modified:.CHANGES
> >modules/mappers mod_rewrite.c
> > Log:
> > mod_rewrite: Handle per-location rules when r-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> trawick 2004/09/18 09:18:27
>
> Modified:.CHANGES
>modules/mappers mod_rewrite.c
> Log:
> mod_rewrite: Handle per-location rules when r->filename is unset.
> Previously this would segfault or simply not match as expected,
> dep
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Index: mod_rewrite.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c,v
retrieving revision 1.218
retrieving revision 1.219
diff -u -r1.218 -r1.219
--- mod_rewrite.c 4 Aug 2003 23:
André Malo wrote:
* Jeff Trawick wrote:
+return "RewriteLog and RewriteLogLevel are not support by this
incarnation "
+ "of mod_rewrite, because it was compiled using the "
"are not supported by this build of mod_rewrite because..."
I thought, I'd be funny :-)
my main point was
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> nd 2003/08/05 10:44:02
>
> +return "RewriteLog and RewriteLogLevel are not support by this build "
supported
Cheers
-Thom
* Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> +return "RewriteLog and RewriteLogLevel are not support by this
>> incarnation "
>> + "of mod_rewrite, because it was compiled using the "
>
> "are not supported by this build of mod_rewrite because..."
I thought, I'd be funny :-)
thanks, nd
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> - the good English speaking people
> - the bad English speaking people
> - and the ugly ones, who should not even try to do so
>
> I think, I'm one of the latter group.
Almost all Americans are in the latter group anyway. ;)
Sorry for being so harassing with this ... ;-)
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Index: mod_rewrite.c
> ===
...
> +if (!(saved_rulestatus =
> apr_table_get(r->notes,"already_rewritten"))) {
Some kind of namespace protection w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
rederpj 2003/07/14 12:30:15
Modified:.CHANGES
modules/mappers mod_rewrite.c
Log:
Remove some extraneous code committed as part of the fix for 13946 pointed
out by Andre Malo. [Paul J. Reder]
Revision ChangesPath
1.1226
Quite right. In the original submitted patch there were several extra
bits which I intended to remove while updating the patch. I removed
one, but forgot the other. You are correct that this code is not part
of the fix. Thanks for the catch. It'll be gone in a sec...
André Malo wrote:
* [EMAIL PROT
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Index: mod_rewrite.c
> ===
...
> @@ -2816,6 +2832,13 @@
>}
>else if (!strncasecmp(uri, "ntp://", 6)) { /* nntp:// */
>return 7;
> +}
> +
* Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> hmm, how is it? Is a fulfilled 2.0 backport vote sufficient to port
>> it back to 1.3 or would I need another voting?
>
> Is the change the same? Would the same patch apply to 2.0 as to 1.3?
> If so, then I think you'd be safe.
Exactly the same change and patch, a
--On Saturday, January 25, 2003 1:11 AM +0100 André Malo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
backport from 2.1: allow RewriteEngine Off even if Options
-FollowSymlinks
hmm, how is it? Is a fulfilled 2.0 backport vote sufficient to port
it back to 1.3 or would I need ano
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> backport from 2.1: allow RewriteEngine Off even if Options -FollowSymlinks
hmm, how is it? Is a fulfilled 2.0 backport vote sufficient to port it back
to 1.3 or would I need another voting?
nd
--
Da fällt mir ein, wieso gibt es eigentlich in Unicode kein
"i" mit
Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > trawick 2002/08/23 05:49:08
> > Modified:.CHANGES
> >modules/mappers mod_rewrite.c mod_rewrite.h
> > Log:
> > add the ability to specify the dbm type (e.g., gdbm, ndbm) for
> > dbm rewr
On 6 May 2002 21:00:50 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>aaron 02/05/06 14:00:50
>
> Modified:modules/mappers mod_rewrite.c
> Log:
> Protect us from this dirty hack that gets SysV Sem working again
> on mod_rewrite. This, along with the original usage of a unix-only
> function in mo
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 02:09:59PM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote:
> That would work but it doesn't really seem like the right thing to
> do. APR.h already has some #defines for other situations such as
> APR_USE_SYSVSEM_SERIALIZE. Maybe if that #define doesn't make since,
> another one should b
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 01:49:36PM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote:
> Why are we calling a Unix specific function in the middle of a module?
> Since unixd_set_global_mutex_perms() doesn't exist on NetWare,
> mod_rewrite won't compile. Should this be handled in APR somewhere?
For now, would this ta
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 01:49:36PM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote:
> Why are we calling a Unix specific function in the middle of a module?
> Since unixd_set_global_mutex_perms() doesn't exist on NetWare,
> mod_rewrite won't compile. Should this be handled in APR somewhere?
Hmm...good point. What
On 6 May 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> IBM's native compiler for AIX failed the compile
> HP's native compiler for HP-UX issued a warning
As if I couldn't have guessed. ;) Thanks again.
--Cliff
--
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cliff Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > trawick 02/05/06 07:02:50
> >
> > Modified:modules/mappers mod_rewrite.c
> > Log:
> > fix the type of the pointer returned by the hash lookup
>
> Thanks for the fix. Just out of curiosity, wh
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Tahiry Ramanamampanoharana wrote:
> One thing I don't understand: why make ap_register_rewrite_mapfunc()
> static and then export it as an optional function? Why isn'it directly a
> public function provided by mod_rewrite?
Good question. The answer is that if you didn't use
On 6 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> trawick 02/05/06 07:02:50
>
> Modified:modules/mappers mod_rewrite.c
> Log:
> fix the type of the pointer returned by the hash lookup
Thanks for the fix. Just out of curiosity, which compiler choked on
casting a (void *) as a function point
PROTECTED]
>To: Tahiry Ramanamampanoharana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/mappers mod_rewrite.c mod_rewrite.h
>(fwd)
>Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 23:14:05 -0400 (EDT)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received:
;Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: Tahiry Ramanamampanoharana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/mappers mod_rewrite.c mod_rewrite.h
>(fwd)
>Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 23:14:05 -0400 (EDT)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from
httpd-2.0/modules/mappers mod_rewrite.c mod_rewrite.h
jwoolley02/05/05 20:10:24
Modified:.CHANGES
modules/mappers mod_rewrite.c mod_rewrite.h
Log:
Added an optional function (ap_register_rewrite_mapfunc) which allows
third-party modules to extend mod_rewr
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 02:51:43PM -0800, Brian Pane wrote:
> You're right; the apr_proc_mutex_t won't be sufficient in this
> case. We'll really need apr_global_mutex_t for this. If that's
> going to be available soon, I'll switch the rewrite code to use
> it when it's released; but if not, I'l
You're right; the apr_proc_mutex_t won't be sufficient in this
case. We'll really need apr_global_mutex_t for this. If that's
going to be available soon, I'll switch the rewrite code to use
it when it's released; but if not, I'll revert to the old lock
API for now.
--Brian
Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 09:57:17PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> brianp 02/02/16 13:57:17
>
> Modified:modules/mappers mod_rewrite.c
> Log:
> Converted the rewrite mapper lock to the new lock API
Did mod_rewrite actually need a LOCKALL? If so, apr_proc_mutex_t
is an insufficie
33 matches
Mail list logo
