On 03/21/2011 12:47 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Nobody has offered a reasonable response, let's try this again... the
availability of pcre and expat are generally a both-or-neither proposition
on most distributions. Ergo, any one of the following resolutions would
restore logically consistenc
When will httpd-2.4 be released?
2011/3/21 William A. Rowe Jr.
> On 3/20/2011 8:26 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> > Am 21.03.2011 01:29, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
> >> On 3/20/2011 7:10 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> >>> Am 21.03.2011 00:47, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
> [ ] httpd-deps shoul
On 3/20/2011 8:26 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Am 21.03.2011 01:29, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
>> On 3/20/2011 7:10 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>>> Am 21.03.2011 00:47, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
[ ] httpd-deps should drop pcre
>>> huh? how can we drop it again? we have already with HEAD;
>>
Am 21.03.2011 02:20, schrieb Guenter Knauf:
Am 21.03.2011 02:12, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
dropping the compilation of mod_charset_lite - I believe no other modules
would be affected by this change.
not even that - I build it fine against OS shipping iconv on NetWare,
and would like to keep
On 3/20/2011 8:20 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Am 21.03.2011 02:12, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
>> dropping the compilation of mod_charset_lite - I believe no other modules
>> would be affected by this change.
> not even that - I build it fine against OS shipping iconv on NetWare, and
> would like
Am 21.03.2011 01:29, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 3/20/2011 7:10 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Am 21.03.2011 00:47, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
[ ] httpd-deps should drop pcre
huh? how can we drop it again? we have already with HEAD;
better would be another point to select including it with
Am 21.03.2011 02:12, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
dropping the compilation of mod_charset_lite - I believe no other modules
would be affected by this change.
not even that - I build it fine against OS shipping iconv on NetWare,
and would like to keep it since it can solve some charset issues for
On 3/20/2011 7:43 PM, Dan Poirier wrote:
> On Sun. 2011-03-20 at 07:47 PM EDT, "William A. Rowe Jr."
> wrote:
>>
>> [1] Note particularly that expat appears to be abandoned, no releases
>> in almost 4 yrs, with a significant security issue hanging over it we
>> patched in apr. No effort appears
It seems overdue to bump to expat 2.0.1.
The attached seems to be the delta we (win and netware) likely care about
to resolve significant defects in 2.0.1 (straight from their cvs tree,
ignoring highly unusual platforms, and gratuitous whitespace changes).
My inclination is to build for 2.4 using
On Sun. 2011-03-20 at 07:47 PM EDT, "William A. Rowe Jr."
wrote:
> Nobody has offered a reasonable response, let's try this again... the
> availability of pcre and expat are generally a both-or-neither proposition
> on most distributions. Ergo, any one of the following resolutions would
> resto
On 3/20/2011 7:10 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Am 21.03.2011 00:47, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
>> [ ] httpd-deps should drop pcre
> huh? how can we drop it again? we have already with HEAD;
> better would be another point to select including it with the httpd-deps
> tarball.
It is brought into
Am 21.03.2011 00:47, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
[ ] httpd-deps should drop pcre
huh? how can we drop it again? we have already with HEAD;
better would be another point to select including it with the httpd-deps
tarball.
Gün.
Nobody has offered a reasonable response, let's try this again... the
availability of pcre and expat are generally a both-or-neither proposition
on most distributions. Ergo, any one of the following resolutions would
restore logically consistency to the next-generation distribution...
[ ] apr 2.
On 2/10/2011 12:33 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/10/2011 9:34 AM, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
>> Issac Goldstand wrote:
>>> Am I getting senile, or didn't we vote on making 1.3 End-Of-Life
>>> already? If so, why is 1.3.42 still featured on our download page as a
>>> "current recommended releas
Am 20.03.2011 19:41, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
Go ahead and simply remove it, just as the docs team would backport whatever
documentation cleanup was appropriate without a STATUS dance. No code is
actually harmed in this exercise.
done:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1083536&view=rev
Gün.
On 3/20/2011 10:39 AM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Am 20.03.2011 09:47, schrieb Guenter Knauf:
>> I was just testing if I could automatically create an export list for
>> mod_dav when I found this in mod_dav.h:
>>
>> /*
>> **
>> ** MIS
Greg,
Am 20.03.2011 17:50, schrieb Greg Stein:
The function name is probably obsolete. I'm away from my laptop, so can't
find the answer. Search the source for that Limit directive mentioned, and
work out from there. I think I moved it out of mod_dav into a more generic
location
did that already
The function name is probably obsolete. I'm away from my laptop, so can't
find the answer. Search the source for that Limit directive mentioned, and
work out from there. I think I moved it out of mod_dav into a more generic
location
On Mar 20, 2011 8:47 AM, "Guenter Knauf" wrote:
> I was just test
Am 20.03.2011 09:47, schrieb Guenter Knauf:
I was just testing if I could automatically create an export list for
mod_dav when I found this in mod_dav.h:
/*
**
** MISCELLANEOUS STUFF
*/
/* fetch the "LimitXMLRequestBody" in fo
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
On Wednesday 16 March 2011, Dan Poirier wrote:
> On Wed. 2011-03-16 at 11:53 AM EDT, jor...@apache.org wrote:
> > Author: jorton
> > Date: Wed Mar 16 15:53:34 2011
> > New Revision: 1082170
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1082170&view=rev
> > Log:
> > * server/main.c (main): Use the
I was just testing if I could automatically create an export list for
mod_dav when I found this in mod_dav.h:
/*
**
** MISCELLANEOUS STUFF
*/
/* fetch the "LimitXMLRequestBody" in force for this resource */
DAV_DECLARE(apr_siz
22 matches
Mail list logo
