why is my module being called for all pages?

2007-08-12 Thread Mark Harrison
warning: newbie alert! I've got a simple module as detailed below. I based it off of the example module, stripping it down to the smallest example I could. It seems to be working, but it is getting called on all web pages. Can someone loan me a clue as to: 1. why it is being called on all

Re: why is my module being called for all pages?

2007-08-12 Thread Frank Jones
On 8/12/07, Mark Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a simple module as detailed below. I based it off of the example module, stripping it down to the smallest example I could. It seems to be working, but it is getting called on all web pages. Can someone loan me a clue as to: 1.

Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review

2007-08-12 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 08/11/2007 01:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through August 14, 2007... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]

Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review

2007-08-12 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 08/11/2007 01:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through August 14, 2007... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]

Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review

2007-08-12 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Aug 12, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: -1 from me on 2.0.60 as the test framework revealed regressions compared to 2.0.59: What platform? Trying to recreate this... These regression are caused by an apr problem. 2.0.59 is shipped with apr 0.9.12 whereas 2.0.60 is

Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review

2007-08-12 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 08/12/2007 05:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Aug 12, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: -1 from me on 2.0.60 as the test framework revealed regressions compared to 2.0.59: What platform? Trying to recreate this... Sorry for omitting: SuSE Linux 32 Bit: gcc (GCC) 4.1.2

Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs

2007-08-12 Thread Jim Jagielski
Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 08/12/2007 05:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Also, would this require a new tag for 2.0.60? It's not an Apache problem, rather with how the 2.0.60 tarball was done, but whenever problems have existed in the tarballs before, we have retagged and rerolled, which I

Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review

2007-08-12 Thread Nick Kew
On 11 Aug 2007, at 00:49, Jim Jagielski wrote: [ ]httpd-2.0.60 Not tested (moot in view of Ruediger's -1) [ ]httpd-2.2.5 +1 Linux and MacOS. Fails two Perl tests on Mac (security/CVE-2004-0959 and apache/pr18757), but that appears to be down to my perl installation. --

Notice of Intent: TR 2.0.61

2007-08-12 Thread Jim Jagielski
Just a FYI: I'm planning on doing a TR of 2.0.61 tomorrow (Aug 13); It's a retag of 2.0.60 (plus the version bump, 'natch), and a reroll with the singular exception of bundling APR 0.9.12, instead of 0.9.14. -- === Jim

Re: Notice of Intent: TR 2.0.61

2007-08-12 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Jim Jagielski wrote: Just a FYI: I'm planning on doing a TR of 2.0.61 tomorrow (Aug 13); It's a retag of 2.0.60 (plus the version bump, 'natch), and a reroll with the singular exception of bundling APR 0.9.12, instead of 0.9.14. Just a quick note; I'll definitely find that objectionable.