yay, php docs at perl.apache.org :)
they may be more popular, but I think we still win when it comes to
open-source altruism :)
sure. but what I'm hoping to accomplish is a more coherent set of
documentation for Apache-Test that transcends what we've done (and
documented well) over in
Geoffrey Young wrote:
[...]
cool. I'm going to spend some time over the next few days trying to get
this situated, then.
should there be Apache-Test/dist too? or should the CPAN distribution be
sufficient?
we can do that, although http://search.cpan.org/dist/Apache-Test/ is just as
good. but
flood STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004-11-24 19:36:41 -0500 (Wed, 24 Nov 2004) $]
Release:
1.0: Released July 23, 2002
milestone-03: Tagged January 16, 2002
ASF-transfer: Released July 17, 2001
httpd-test/perl-framework STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004-11-24 19:36:41 -0500 (Wed, 24 Nov 2004) $]
Stuff to do:
* finish the t/TEST exit code issue (ORed with 0x2C if
framework failed)
* change existing tests that frob the
Hi,
Index: TestRunPerl.pm
===
--- TestRunPerl.pm (revision 153110)
+++ TestRunPerl.pm (working copy)
@@ -35,6 +35,9 @@
# Apache::TestConfigPerl already configures mod_perl.so
This solution looks good to me, but should be mod_embperl.c instead of
Embperl.c.
well, I went to the embperl site and added this to my httpd.conf
LoadModule embperl_module /tmp/Embperl.so
and things worked out as expected
[ debug] /tmp/Embperl.so is already absolute
[ debug]
Hi
This solution looks good to me, but should be mod_embperl.c
instead of
Embperl.c.
well, I went to the embperl site and added this to my httpd.conf
LoadModule embperl_module /tmp/Embperl.so
and things worked out as expected
[ debug] /tmp/Embperl.so is already
Stas Bekman wrote:
Folks committing to A-T, please don't forget to subscribe to the new lists:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think I mentioned that before, but it never hurts :)
I've approved joe as a poster.
Geoff, why the moderation hits the modperl-cvs /at/
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2005-02-04 20:58:31 -0500 (Fri, 04 Feb 2005) $]
The current version of this file can be found at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
Release history:
2.0.53 :
APACHE 2.1 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2005-02-04 15:27:11 -0500 (Fri, 04 Feb 2005) $]
The current version of this file can be found at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS
Release history:
[NOTE that only
OK - let's face it. Most people who seriously run Apache (1.3/2) run it
on a UNIX system. Often Linux. Some people have switched from Apache
1.3 to Apache 2 for a variety of reasons, but from my POV the new MPMs
were the primary reason for switching to Apache 2.
This is an excerpt from the
The problem is: SSL is *NOT* usable for virtual hosting. You need an
separate socket for each SSL vhost, so you'll probably prefere
several independent httpd's - maybe then stripped down w/o any vhost support.
You're right - SSL is not usable for name-based vhosts. However it
should be fine
We had a customer scenario (on HP-UX) recently where cgi scripts that
were spawned by mod_cgid continued to run even when httpd was stopped.
The ppid of these scripts was automatically 1 when the httpd processes
terminated. The customer does not find any reason why these processes
need to continue
On Thursday 10 February 2005 11:56, Nick Maynard wrote:
OK - let's face it. Most people who seriously run Apache (1.3/2) run it
on a UNIX system. Often Linux. Some people have switched from Apache
1.3 to Apache 2 for a variety of reasons, but from my POV the new MPMs
were the primary reason
Apologies to all if this sounds a little harsh, but I've been banging my
head against the perchild problem, and associated workarounds for a lack
of it, for so long it seems my entire Apache config life is taken up
with it.
I'd just like some kind of indication of whether it will ever get
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 01:16:10PM +, Nick Maynard wrote:
If not, you/we really should tell everyone, and let it die its natural
death. Maybe I've missed you doing this, but your docs do say work is
ongoing on perchild...
The docs have been updated (all complete and in a red warning
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:56:47 +, Nick Maynard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
UNIX MPMs that actually _work_ in Apache 2:
worker
prefork (old)
Yeah, but what if you want to run PHP or mod_perl?
Sure, PHP or mod_perl ~might~ work for you if you're lucky and you don't
Nick Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:03
GMT-5
The problem is: SSL is *NOT* usable for virtual hosting. You need an
separate socket for each SSL vhost, so you'll probably prefere
several independent httpd's - maybe then stripped down w/o any vhost
support.
You're right - SSL is not
Paul A. Houle wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:56:47 +, Nick Maynard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
UNIX MPMs that actually _work_ in Apache 2:
worker
prefork (old)
Yeah, but what if you want to run PHP or mod_perl?
Sure, PHP or mod_perl ~might~ work for
Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:11 GMT-5
I agree the documentation should be better. Also we should properly
document
the perchild-like options, since that is frequently-requested. In the
meantime, here's a list of things to look at if you want
perchild-like:
* Metux MPM
*
On Thursday 10 February 2005 14:10, Leif W wrote:
Hi, sorry if this is off-topic, but I just want to make sure I
understand this problem. Last month I read an email on another list
(suPHP) in which someone was upset about the security of Apache 2.0.x
with all file i/o and cgi being done by a
At 07:24 AM 2/10/2005, Paul A. Houle wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:56:47 +, Nick Maynard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
UNIX MPMs that actually _work_ in Apache 2:
worker
Yeah, but what if you want to run PHP or mod_perl?
Sure, PHP or mod_perl ~might~ work for you if
From: Leif W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 3:10 PM
[...]
It's already a huge list of workaround and compatibility and portability for
an admin could be a nightmare. I do not know if there are even more security
wrappers needed for other language modules. Can
At 08:10 AM 2/10/2005, Leif W wrote:
I'm just trying to understand where the breakdown is. A feature that people
want, the lack of which spawns a sloppy slew of incompatible workarounds, but
no one around to respond and code it or fix what's available. The strength of
Apache was always *nix,
Here's an alternative implementation: does it work for you?
Index: ssl_private.h
===
--- ssl_private.h (revision 153210)
+++ ssl_private.h (working copy)
@@ -641,6 +641,9 @@
/* Variables */
void
On Thursday 10 February 2005 11:56, Nick Maynard wrote:
OK - let's face it. Most people who seriously run Apache (1.3/2) run it
on a UNIX system. Often Linux. Some people have switched from Apache
1.3 to Apache 2 for a variety of reasons, but from my POV the new MPMs
were the primary
--On Wednesday, February 9, 2005 3:55 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did exactly that for win32.
The old win32 build system recompiled buildmark.c as a build
step (bleh.) The new win32 build system has the compilation
of buildmark.c as a prelink step - if we aren't
The docs have been updated (all complete and in a red warning box):
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mod/perchild.html
This module is not functional. Development of this module is not
complete and is not currently active. Do not use perchild unless you
are a programmer willing to help fix it.
No objections to going ahead with this?
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 03:01:56PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
There are two problems with the use of PCRE in httpd: firstly that there
is no support for use of an external pcre library (PR27750), and
secondly that use of the pcreposix.h interface can cause
Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:15 GMT-5
On Thursday 10 February 2005 14:10, Leif W wrote:
Hi, sorry if this is off-topic, but I just want to make sure I
understand this problem. Last month I read an email on another list
(suPHP) in which someone was upset about the security of
Nick Maynard wrote:
UNIX MPMs that actually _work_ in Apache 2:
worker
prefork (old)
event (experimental)
unclear if it works with mod_ssl with pipelining (not tested here yet)
Greg
Paul A. Houle wrote:
On Linux I've done some benchmarking and found that worker isn't
any faster than prefork at serving static pages. (Is it any different
on other platforms, such as Solaris?)
I'm sure we can tweak worker and event to make them faster, especially in 2.1+
with
Paul A. Houle wrote:
On Linux I've done some benchmarking and found that worker isn't
any faster than prefork at serving static pages. (Is it any different
on other platforms, such as Solaris?) In principle you might save RAM
by running prefork, but in this day and age you can fit 16
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:35 GMT-5
From: Leif W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 3:10 PM
things which might commonly be used in concert? Is there any
direction given
from the top of the Apache group in regards to what gets attention?
No, there
--On Thursday, February 10, 2005 4:38 PM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jorton
Date: Thu Feb 10 08:38:47 2005
New Revision: 153273
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=153273
Log:
* Makefile.in: Use buildmark.o not .lo since it was COMPILEd
not LT_COMPILEd.
I'm wondering if
Leif W wrote:
My only concern is, if some people solved the puzzle externally, then
are there barriers which prevent them from getting the code committed?
The Metux web pages (official and unofficial) seem to be works in
progress. There is a quote which indicates that at least the guy
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:25:44 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
[snip]
Is it legal for third party modules to rely on CORE_PRIVATE in order to gain
access to functions (and other bits) that would otherwise be out of bounds?
For
instance, I'm trying to rely on functions that help in creating
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:17:20AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Thursday, February 10, 2005 4:38 PM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jorton
Date: Thu Feb 10 08:38:47 2005
New Revision: 153273
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=153273
Log:
* Makefile.in: Use
On 10 Feb 2005, at 16:45, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
If you know of such a programmer that can quickly identify and fix
race conditions, please send him my way. I will give him a job in a
second.
It kind of depends how well the races are hidden, doesn't it? :)
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
Patch against 2.0.x of below.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:36:09 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] remove formatting from ap_log_error calls
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
ap_log_error escapes escape sequences such as newline and tab so
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 12:56 -0500, Edward Rudd wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:25:44 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
[snip]
Is it legal for third party modules to rely on CORE_PRIVATE in order to
gain
access to functions (and other bits) that would otherwise be out of bounds?
For
Another set of eyes please :)
Index: server/protocol.c
===
--- server/protocol.c (revision 153271)
+++ server/protocol.c (working copy)
@@ -880,6 +880,12 @@
return r;
}
+if (r-status ==
At 07:24 AM 2/10/2005, Leif W wrote:
Hi. I hang out mostly on the users list, but have played with basic
HTTPS configuration (using SSL or TLS). As I understand, HTTPS works
fine with any VirtualHost, so long as it is based on a unique ip:port
combination. That is the current alternative to
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:02:02 -0500, Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patch against 2.0.x of below.
There is at least one other such fix that is in trunk but not in
2.0.x. See
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm_common.c?rev=102772r1=102686r2=102772
Care to add
Bojan Smojver wrote:
if I rely on what's below CORE_PRIVATE, am I setting myself up
for a disaster when those things change without notice?
I think the answer to this is similar to the old line if you need to ask
how much it costs you can't afford it.
;)
--Geoff
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 06:26:00AM +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
...
When I said legal, I meant that in the technical sense. Along the
lines of if I rely on what's below CORE_PRIVATE, am I setting myself up
for a disaster when those things change without notice?
Basically, are functions and
Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 06:26:00AM +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
...
When I said legal, I meant that in the technical sense. Along the
lines of if I rely on what's below CORE_PRIVATE, am I setting myself up
for a disaster when those things change without notice?
Basically, are
--On Thursday, February 10, 2005 4:57 PM -0800 Paul Querna
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, there is no guaranteed binary compat for any module that defines
CORE_PRIVATE?
I would think that any module that #define's CORE_PRIVATE is on its own and
righly so. -- justin
Quoting Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you *do* need something hidden by CORE_PRIVATE, then bring it up along
with a rationale for why that thing should be made public. That's your
best solution.
Get it.
For example, function ap_create_request_config() is required in order to create
49 matches
Mail list logo
