--On Friday, November 19, 2004 7:57 PM +0100 André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Looks basically fine. I'm wondering a bit about the tags directory,
especially the 1.3 subdir. Is it necessary, is there something broken?
Just to be clear, Sander's email that you are replying to was an artifact
--On Friday, November 19, 2004 2:41 PM -0700 Brad Nicholes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
listings to keep the subject line shorter and more informative. I also
don't need to see svn commit: r at the front of every message. I
already know it is an SVN commit based on the mailing list it came
--On Saturday, November 20, 2004 1:49 AM +0100 André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Just a question:
Maybe I'm missing the info - is the httpd trunk supposed to work with the
apr 1.0.x branch or just the apr trunk?
We're going to have to decide which APR branch/release httpd 2.1/2.2 should
work
--On Friday, November 19, 2004 6:22 PM -0800 Roy T. Fielding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I happen to agree that the commit messages suck, but the right thing
to do is have a look at the script and suggest a patch on the
infrastructure mailing list. I would do it myself, but have a paper
--On Friday, November 19, 2004 8:01 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll offer compelling argument. Allen offered patches, which
Roy vetoed, to fix object sizes on 32/64/64 ILP bit platforms,
and told Allen to go back and fix APR.
That is the right answer, branch APR 1.x,
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Grab the 2.1.1 tarballs while they're fresh. Please start testing these
releases - they should have the intent of becoming the beginning of the 2.2.x
series modulo all of the cleanup work we'll have to do after we branch. For
now, 2.1.1 includes APR/APR-util
--On Saturday, November 20, 2004 12:53 AM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.1.1 is nothing (yet)
3 +1's (more +1 than -1) becomes alpha release.
3 +1's (more +1 than -1) alpha becomes beta.
That beta becomes a perfect branch point for 2.2 GA.
Not quite. It's alpha now.
--On Saturday, November 20, 2004 1:49 AM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Back up. Nothing is a release, not even an alpha, without 3 +1's.
Until it's voted as a release, even as alpha, it's simply a tarball.
Nobody can declare any release without 3 +1's and it's been that
--On Saturday, November 20, 2004 2:35 AM -0500 Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consensus at the conference was that the branch point corresponds to the
2.1.x release upon which we declare feature freeze for the 2.2 branch.
My concern with this is that if we're waiting for one small
--On Monday, November 22, 2004 11:27 AM -0500 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I agree... Otherwise, we won't see many people move to
2.2 since 3rd party modules won't be available for it,
since module developers will know that within a short
amount of time, they'll need to redo their
--On Monday, November 22, 2004 1:08 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That *will* affect the 2.2 uptake rate because our third parties will
take a lot of time to get their modules 64-bit clean (if they do at all).
WHO CARES?!? That's on them. They can release bug fixes
--On Monday, November 22, 2004 5:30 PM -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suggestion: Make sure someone can compress any response
they want via config but then make sure to NOT recommend
doing certain things and let them swim at their own risk.
No lifeguard on duty.
+1. -- justin
--On Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:25 AM +0100 André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Currently the docs build tools are misplaced under infrastructure. I'd like
to have them moved from
/infrastructure/site-tools/trunk/httpd-docs-build/
to
/httpd/docs-build/trunk (or the like)
What do you think?
+1.
--On Tuesday, November 23, 2004 6:06 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
server/core.c: the core_input/output_filter-modules/filters/core.c *or*
server/core_filters.c
(server/core.c is 150k. Yikes!)\
Sounds like multiple
--On Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:54 PM -0500 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
One thing I was hoping is that, if bundled it, people can
add the kind of features they need. It was designed for a
simple and clear purpose, but there is more that it
can, and should, do :)
I think mod_dumpio
--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 8:58 AM + Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
9 out of 10 mutt users prefer URLs which don't line-wrap :)
For the record, the reason why the URL is so long is because a file might
exist in one revision, but not in another. I guess I could enhance the
--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 9:12 AM + Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=106264view=rev link will
catch everything though, right?
See the commit email for r106402... =) -- justin
--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 6:01 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks! (Gosh Justin, I'm so envious of your free time. I can't keep
up with my in-box.)
I wish it'd be s/free/sleep/. =) -- justin
--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 2:20 PM -0500 Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So sure, screw it. APR trunk is now 2.0-dev. Have fun.
Oh, please don't. We have *no* idea what the changes are or whether we'll
even ultimately accept them. Please branch Allen's changes off in a
--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 2:29 PM -0500 Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sick of all talk and no action. We tried this last year when we were
almost ready to branch APR 1.0 and all action on that front ceased
entirely for a YEAR. This time it's one or the other. I'll wait 24
--On Friday, November 26, 2004 12:05 AM + Max Bowsher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Actually aclocal belongs to automake.
Correct.
But then, it would be a weird system where autoconf/automake/libtool are not
installed as a group, so I guess that's still ok.
No, it's not. I purposely don't install
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 08:05:53AM +0100, Andr Malo wrote:
oops. (Who the hell named that tool aclocal?!)
It was probably named that way to promote confusion. Sane people would have
called it amlocal instead. *shrug*
No, it's not. I purposely don't install automake.
I'd be really
--On Saturday, November 27, 2004 2:24 AM -0500 Stephen Jungels
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Developers of Apache 1.3 and 2.0 should know that GNU egrep is broken on
some platforms, and on these platforms Apache configure scripts which rely
on egrep produce broken builds of Apache. Details follow.
--On Friday, November 26, 2004 8:06 AM +0100 André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Did you already mv them, nd?
Nope. Justin...? :-)
Done. =) -- justin
--On Sunday, November 28, 2004 1:31 AM -0800 Paul Querna
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This will revert the splitting of several large files inside /server/ by
Justin yesterday.
I thought it might of been the ordering of libmain in the /Makefile.in, and
I tried changing that back to the old order,
--On Sunday, November 28, 2004 3:36 PM -0800 Brian Pane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Meanwhile, now that we have the latest release of PCRE in httpd-2.1, one
option would help somewhat would be to backport it into httpd-2.0.
I doubt we'd be able to maintain binary compatibility if we did that. So,
--On Monday, November 29, 2004 10:48 AM +0100 Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Your patch breaks win32 build.
The reason is that the AP_DECLARE is __stdcall while
cmd_table is __cdecl.
Huh? I don't know Win32 at all, so this makes no sense.
Can you revert the patch or use the
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 06:30:35PM +0100, Mladen Turk wrote:
__stdcall: The callee cleans the stack
__cdecl (default): The stack is cleaned up by the caller
So you can not mix that two.
The cmd_table uses __cdecl functions and you are providing
__stdcall function, so the build fails.
You
--On Monday, November 29, 2004 10:41 AM -0800 Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
but we were not allowed to remove features. Removing the fp from the
API would have disabled this feature in mod_perl, among others.
I can't tell you how often I've been bitten personally by mod_perl trying to
--On Monday, November 29, 2004 6:52 PM +0100 Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sorry its cmd_func not cmd_table.
AP_DECLARE(const char *) ap_set_listenbacklog(...)
evaluates to:
__declspec(dllexport) const char * __stdcall ap_set_listenbacklog(...)
Later on there is:
--On Monday, November 29, 2004 6:33 PM -0700 Paul Querna
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do other developers have objections to moving the website to XSLT (like the
manual) instead of the current Velocity/Anakia?
I would recommend that any initial XSLT source transforms be kept as close to
the Anakia
--On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 8:25 AM +0100 André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Most developers are bad in writing documentation with either system. The
only thing the current system brought, were inconsistencies. Look at the
site. It's ugly, it's inconsistent, there are a lot of different
--On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 6:53 PM +1100 NormW [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
With the recent upgrade of PCRE for Apache 2.1.x, I was curious if zLib
(required for mod_deflate) is mandated at 1.1.4 or could it also be
'updated' to the 1.2.1 release (available since Nov'03). A 2.1 build on
Windows
--On Wednesday, December 1, 2004 6:44 PM -0500 Allan Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a defensive move, mod_deflate could just check for
APR_BRIGADE_EMPTY and immediately return APR_SUCCESS.
Or we could put checks in mod_include to prevent passing
empty buckets in the first place (I think
--On Wednesday, December 8, 2004 9:33 AM + Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 05:14:40PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
OK, now that you have enabled upgrades for anything other than
OPTIONS, I see the problem. Even though there is a content-length
included in the
--On Wednesday, December 8, 2004 8:53 PM + Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I can't convince myself it would solve the general case, though: if both
r- and c-output_filters to happen point to the *same* filter,
modifying the filter chain without knowledge of r- (which is the
problem) will
--On Wednesday, December 8, 2004 11:45 PM -0500 Rodent of Unusual Size
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
APACHE 2.1 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/11/06 08:28:24 $]
Ken: FWIW, httpd has switched to Subversion (and APR has too). Is it
--On Thursday, December 9, 2004 2:16 PM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: geoff
Date: Thu Dec 9 06:16:16 2004
New Revision: 111386
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=111386
Log:
add response code 226 constant (HTTP_IM_USED) and status
line (226 IM Used). PR 31128.
As I emailed
--On Thursday, December 9, 2004 11:26 AM -0500 Geoffrey Young
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well, I guess it depends on whether the goal is to help (for some definition
of help) support official HTTP variants (if indeed that's what 3229 is), or
just for things we actually take the time to implement
--On Thursday, December 9, 2004 11:03 AM -0700 Brad Nicholes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a new revision of APR 1.0.x going to be released anytime soon?
I don't see anything in the CHANGES entry for 1.0.2 in APR. *nudge* -- justin
During ApacheCon, a number of us had talked about holding more frequent
face-to-face meetings (or summits or whatever). Fred is willing to find a
place for us at Apple with space and 'net access. Fred's suggested around
the week of February 7th, 2005. That would work for me as well.
So, how
--On Friday, December 10, 2004 5:49 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Might be a good argument for choosing a location with some crash
space nearby for anyone who doesn't want a room (if we go 2 days.)
Obviously, for those split on paying for a room, they can solicit
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
During ApacheCon, a number of us had talked about holding more frequent
face-to-face meetings (or summits or whatever). Fred is willing to find
a place for us at Apple with space and 'net access. Fred's suggested
around the week of February 7th, 2005. That would
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
Sounds a lot more feasible than travelling to .us for a hack.
But I'm wondering what this actually achieves? Sure, it gets people
to focus on Getting Things Done, but a *scheduled* IRC+pastebin-based
hackathon could do that without the
--On Monday, December 13, 2004 5:29 AM +0100 Enrico Weigelt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we don't maintain configure;
bad enough. an carefully hand-written configure would be much better.
Been there, done that with APACI. We ain't going back to a hand-written
configure.
AIUI, your problem is
--On Sunday, December 12, 2004 3:49 PM +0100 Andreas Steinmetz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems from the tcpdump that img
src=http://www.bitmover.com/gifs/bitkeeper-shadow.gif; is requested by
the proxy resulting in a 304 and then the same tcp connection is
erroneously reused to request the
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 09:00:58AM +, Joe Orton wrote:
Yeah, that was fixed in 1.5.10. For an autoconf 2.59-generated
configure script the only reference to grep -E is in the test to see
whether grep -E works or not, so that looks fixed to me too.
Excellent. So we've wasted all this
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 01:01:35PM +0800, hutuworm wrote:
2.0.52 : released September 28, 2005 as GA.
Sorry again. ;)
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
It's been updated in Subversion. It's that Ken hasn't updated his script to
use Subversion instead of CVS.
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 00:37:49 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Actually - all of this Euro talk reminds me how less-than-optimal
the west coast really is for European participants. The east coast
seems like a short hop by comparison.)
east coast sounds much better to
--On Monday, December 13, 2004 2:40 PM -0700 Paul Querna
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would be 2.1.2-beta right? Not 2.2.0-beta1?
Correct.
Our first 'beta' release doesn't necessarily mean that it'd be 2.2.0-beta1.
We can have as many 2.1.x betas as we want. However, I think it was said
that
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:20:26AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Of course we could do that.
However, it's entirely against the first principal of httpd,
which is that this project builds against more old and crufty
operating systems installs than most utilities, sans 'cat' :)
What is *supposed* to be the behavior of long-running CGI scripts that have
their connections closed on them before they complete? Are they supposed to
finish, or abort prematurely? Do they receive some signal when the parent
closes its handle?
With httpd-2.1, if I add the following to the
Jeff wrote:
Any agreement to use the non-DOS-able and protocol-compliant
implementation by default, and allow the C-L method to be enabled by a
special setting? Even if somebody reworks the C-L method to be able
to buffer on disk, that is wasted effort (and still a DOS concern) in
many
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005, Roy T.Fielding wrote:
On Jan 1, 2005, at 1:38 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Apache 1.3 does not support chunked request bodies. (All 2.x GA
releases
do though.) So, that factors very much in the reason that I don't
think
we should send chunks by default: all
--On Tuesday, January 4, 2005 8:48 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is current patch-in-progress. I'd guess there many bugs. I
don't mean to waste anyone's time with an in-progress mess, but any
comments on the current state would be very valuable.
How about creating a
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 02:35:25PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
does this look correct?
svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk \
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/proxy-reqbody
Yup. -- justin
--On Saturday, January 8, 2005 10:43 PM + Ben Laurie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Errr... mod_backhand?
mod_backhand doesn't support Apache 2.x:
http://www.backhand.org/mod_backhand/FAQ.shtml#question0
HTH. -- justin
With trunk (r124972), I get these warnings on startup on the console:
[Wed Jan 12 09:28:50 2005] [warn] (2)No such file or
directory: Failed to enable the 'httpready' Accept Filter
[Wed Jan 12 09:28:50 2005] [warn] (2)No such file or
directory: Failed to
--On Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:42 AM + Pier Fumagalli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guys,
going through the mod_cache documentation, i found out that it's
either mis-documented, or there's actually a small bug in the 2.0.52 (and
earlier) code.
--On Thursday, January 20, 2005 12:23 PM -0600 Ben Collins-Sussman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because mod_dav.h is a public API, it's not clear how I would proceed.
Especially since we'd want to backport this for a 2.0.x release without
breaking binary compatibility.
I'd like to know if this
--On Friday, January 21, 2005 2:46 PM + Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Modern versions of GCC/binutils/... support flags which allow building
Position Independent Executables. This a Security Feature (TM) which
means that executables can be loaded at non-fixed locations, making it
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 04:28:46PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
What I propose is that changes to packaging files (such as
build/rpm/httpd.spec.in, build/pkg/buildpkg.sh, etc) should be CTR, just
as documentation files are. This will not apply if other files (source
code for example) are
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 01:11:34AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please describe what this actually does?
Are we back to libproxy.la, libssl.la after this change?
For static modules, yes. This was modified in r102381 by Joe:
---
Correct use of libtool: libtool convenience libraries
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 03:48:39PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Could be solved with an well-engineered, deterministic buildsystem ...
Exactly this one which autoconf isnt.
How exactly do you think removing autoconf (and only autoconf) would help
packagers? I certainly don't see how this is
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 10:11:44PM +1100, dean wrote:
Ive enabled mod_disk_cache in the 'stock-standard' httpd.conf, and
cached pages come back wrong (missing images css)
Ive found a bugzilla report that explained the exact same behaviour [Bug
31486].
Are you using the proxy by any chance?
--On Monday, January 31, 2005 1:22 PM -0500 Bill Stoddard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just committed a change to core.c in httpd-2.1 (rev 149269). I'm
looking here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd/httpd/
and I can't find my change or rev 149269. If I look here:
Any opposition to doing a tag and roll of 2.0.53 soon? (Yes, I volunteer
to be RM.) How about targetting next Tuesday (2/8) for 2.0.53? I can lay
down the candidate tarball on Friday morning, so whatever backports are
merged by then make it. =)
Do we want closure on Jeff's proxy chunking
--On Tuesday, February 1, 2005 6:41 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heck, I don't know how we get from here to closure on the 2.1-dev
equivalent ;) What do we do with the proxy-reqbody branch? Merge to
trunk?
Is it ready to be reviewed? I'd suggest asking for review to merge it
--On Wednesday, February 2, 2005 12:25 AM +1100 dean
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My first thought was that Firefox has an issue. Then I installed 2.0.53
as a cache-proxy BUT I couldn't reproduce the above, Google logo loads
everytime.
Another simple page I tried is news.com.au/wireless.
Steps 1 -3
--On Tuesday, February 1, 2005 10:33 AM -0700 Brad Nicholes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The LDAP_OPT_SEND_TIMEOUT option appears to be a Microsoft LDAP SDK
only option. As I see it we can go in a couple of different ways here.
OpenLDAP has LDAP_OPT_TIMELIMIT, LDAP_OPT_TIMEOUT, and
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 08:44:03AM +1100, dean wrote:
Im not sure where to find out the revision, but I checked out the src
from cvs just before my first post. I just did another update and
nothing has changed. Hope Im using the right command:
cvs checkout -d httpd-2.1 httpd-2.0
Oh. In
--On Wednesday, February 2, 2005 1:43 PM -0500 Jim Jagielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any reason why we don't enable reporting of Req? I have
a 2.1 patch ready to go, but I don't know why we don't
do this
I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. =)
Can you please provide some more
--On Wednesday, February 2, 2005 8:49 PM +0200 Graham Leggett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mod_cache already supports the concept of spooling files to disk (or
memory, or shared memory), and can be taught how to serve an incompletely
downloaded file to other clients (apparently it cannot at the
--On Wednesday, February 2, 2005 11:38 PM +0200 Graham Leggett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If mod_cache was taught to serve a being-cached URL directly from the
cache (shadowing the real download), there would be no need for parallel
connections to the backend server while the file is being cached,
--On Wednesday, February 2, 2005 8:40 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review the proxy-reqbody branch for proposed improvements to
2.1-dev. There is a 2.0.x equivalent of the patch at
http://httpd.apache.org/~trawick/20proxyreqbody.txt.
To help people review Jeff's
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 11:11:15PM -0500, Stas Bekman wrote:
thanks Jim. and 3 +1s were added already. if it makes into 2.0.53 that
would be great.
If no one has beaten me to it, I plan to merge all changes with 3 +1s in
STATUS on Friday morning before I lay down the 2.0.53 tag. -- justin
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 09:06:04AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't see any way to implement that cleanly and without lots of undue
complexity. Many dragons lay in that direction.
When I put together the initial framework of mod_cache, solving this
problem
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 01:38:26PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
==
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c Thu Feb 3 05:38:24 2005
@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 07:43:48AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
which is not portable... z/OS doesn't have it, and I would assume
that z/OS isn't the only reason we've been dragging around PrintPath
all this time...
Yikes. Are there really other supported Unix's that don't have which?
what
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 03:55:33PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
Yes, it might have side-effects like /etc/csh.login running yppasswd and
prompting on /dev/tty to change an expired NIS password ;) It's not safe
to use at all.
How exactly do we safely know if a program exists then? We can't execute
--On Thursday, February 3, 2005 8:17 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not aware of a reliable mechanism at present, but I would greatly
appreciate any hints.
If there is not an existing mechanism, I'd like to add something prior
to 2.2 APIs being cast in stone.
The local port
--On Thursday, February 3, 2005 11:31 PM + Max Bowsher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
BugZilla link:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29740
Applied in r151255. Thanks! -- justin
--On Friday, February 4, 2005 12:59 AM + Max Bowsher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Is it suitably small to be considered for 2.0.x backport?
I'm one step ahead of you - I already proposed it. =) It's unlikely that
it'll get two more votes by tomorrow morning when I start the 2.0.53
release
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 02:38:47AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Thu Feb 3 18:38:45 2005
New Revision: 151297
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=151297
Log:
Merge in mod_dumpio
Thanks for merging it in! I didn't know exactly how to treat the Win32 and
Tarballs for 2.0.53 are available and at:
http://www.apache.org/~jerenkrantz/httpd-2.0.53/
Once we receive 3 +1s (and no -1s, hopefully!), I'll move it over to the
mirrors. I then hope to be able to do the announcement and email some time
on Monday.
With httpd-test on Darwin, I get:
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 09:39:47PM +0100, Oden Eriksson wrote:
I'd say +1, but I think I have no rights to vote. It seems to work just fine
on several Mandrakelinux 10.0 production boxes and also on Cooker.
Even if you aren't a committer, you can always cast a vote. Everyone's input
is
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Oden Eriksson wrote:
I meant if you unpack the tar ball, the root directory name is
httpd-2.0.53-rc1 and not httpd-2.0.53. Does that matter?
Ah, darn. I'll fix it before I make it public. -- justin
--On Monday, February 7, 2005 11:08 AM -0600 Jess Holle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It appears that 2.0.53 does not include the LDAP socket timeout
configuration patch.
Is this true?
If so, is there a 2.0.x-ready patch for this?
We'll be building 2.0.53 binaries shortly and I'm interested in this
--On Monday, February 7, 2005 1:50 PM -0500 Greg Ames
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm working on it. log replay is not behaving at the moment but it looks
more like a client problem than a server problem. I'm tempted to just
switch production over but would feel better if my usual tests would
--On Monday, February 7, 2005 6:45 PM +0100 David Lichteblau
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we are trying to use mod_proxy/mod_cache as a `reverse proxy' in front
of our webserver. In our configuration, we would like Apache to cache
all responses from our server, but revalidate them for every new
--On Tuesday, February 8, 2005 6:06 PM +0100 David Lichteblau
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for your help! With these commits things work better, but then
something funny happens:
The cached response _body_ is delivered to the client just fine, but
together with the 304 response _header_ just
--On Tuesday, February 8, 2005 10:46 PM +0100 David Lichteblau
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
info-status at this point is zero, because file_cache_recall_mydata()
does not initialize it.
But setting it properly does not help either. The client gets the bogus
304 no matter what info-status is at this
--On Wednesday, February 9, 2005 10:47 AM +0100 Sander Striker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
+/* RFC 2616 10.3.5 states that entity headers are not supposed
+ * to be in the 304 response. Therefore, we need to load in the
+ * cached headers before we update the cached
I'd like to see what we can do to minimize our need to always recompile
buildmark.c. Ideally, it should only need to be recompiled if httpd is
being relinked for some other reason - not every single time make is run.
One possibility might be to do something via the $(PROGRAM_NAME) target in
--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
--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
--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
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 03:05:01PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
The point of this small patch is to allow mod_dav to take an easy
out instead of actually going through the (expensive) delivery
step, in case of a conditional request. Think of cache
validating requests for instance.
Makes
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 08:32:07PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/Makefile.win
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/httpd/httpd/trunk/Makefile.win?view=diffr1=154339r2=154340
==
---
--On Tuesday, February 22, 2005 11:56 AM +0100 Guenter Knauf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
not much more to say than the subject;
I think a couple of folks are waiting for any next alpha/beta/gamma
release of the 2.1-dev line; and its only fair also for the developers of
third-party modules that
501 - 600 of 1873 matches
Mail list logo
