Fwd: [users@httpd] 2.3.15-beta: module proxy_balancer requires the not automatically loaded module slotmem_shm

2011-11-09 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
Devs, This one in from the users@ list. It sounds vaguely familiar to the issue previously mentioned about win32 defaults and some strange dependency failure between proxy_balancer and slotmem providers. Only, this is on the bleeding edge beta posted today, and hits Unix (particularly with our

Re: Fwd: [users@httpd] 2.3.15-beta: module proxy_balancer requires the not automatically loaded module slotmem_shm

2011-11-09 Thread Stefan Fritsch
Hi, On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: This one in from the users@ list. It sounds vaguely familiar to the issue previously mentioned about win32 defaults and some strange dependency failure between proxy_balancer and slotmem providers. Only, this is on the bleeding edge beta

Re: Fwd: [users@httpd] 2.3.15-beta: module proxy_balancer requires the not automatically loaded module slotmem_shm

2011-11-09 Thread Rainer Jung
On 09.11.2011 13:53, Stefan Fritsch wrote: Hi, On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: This one in from the users@ list. It sounds vaguely familiar to the issue previously mentioned about win32 defaults and some strange dependency failure between proxy_balancer and slotmem providers.

Re: Fwd: [users@httpd] 2.3.15-beta: module proxy_balancer requires the not automatically loaded module slotmem_shm

2011-11-09 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
On 11/9/2011 3:53 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: Hi, On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: This one in from the users@ list. It sounds vaguely familiar to the issue previously mentioned about win32 defaults and some strange dependency failure between proxy_balancer and slotmem providers.

Re: Fwd: [users@httpd] 2.3.15-beta: module proxy_balancer requires the not automatically loaded module slotmem_shm

2011-11-09 Thread Rainer Jung
On 09.11.2011 14:48, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 11/9/2011 3:53 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: Hi, On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: This one in from the users@ list. It sounds vaguely familiar to the issue previously mentioned about win32 defaults and some strange dependency