Hi All,
I've yet to actually see this work without modifications.
I posted about this before, and Stas and I agreed my patch was not correct.
Moving on
Index: lib/ModPerl/Config.pm
===
--- lib/ModPerl/Config.pm (revision
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Hi All,
Pending the ldd/otool patch to mp2 and A-T, I'd like to see a mp 2.0.2
released as
its been almost 4 months and we'll have 17 changes of varying degree.
As long as it gets a good spin of positive rc testing under various configs,
Stas Bekman wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
[...]
The only problem I have is how to prevent from Apache to continue on
failure. Any ideas?
In fact neither a failure in PostConfig prevents from Apache to normall
startup:
[Mon Sep 12 17:38:21 2005] [error] Can't load Perl file:
.../t/conf/post_c
Stas Bekman wrote:
[...]
The only problem I have is how to prevent from Apache to continue on
failure. Any ideas?
In fact neither a failure in PostConfig prevents from Apache to normall
startup:
[Mon Sep 12 17:38:21 2005] [error] Can't load Perl file:
.../t/conf/post_config_startup.pl for s
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Pending the ldd/otool patch to mp2 and A-T, I'd like to see a mp 2.0.2
> released as
> its been almost 4 months and we'll have 17 changes of varying degree.
As long as it gets a good spin of positive rc testing under various configs,
I am +1
I've got 2-3
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Do we want to include 2.1.7b as "supported" ?
At the moment we support only 2.0 officialy. This of course can be always
changed...
--
__
Stas BekmanJAm_pH --> Just Another mod_perl Hac
Stas Bekman wrote:
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Did you have a chance to run the build/test against all supported perl
and Apache versions and several of their different builds? If so and
all tests pass, then certainly +1. If not I'll try to run the tests
tonight.
I'll run them tonight as well.
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Hi All,
Pending the ldd/otool patch to mp2 and A-T, I'd like to see a mp 2.0.2
released as
its been almost 4 months and we'll have 17 changes of varying degree.
I'll volunteer to RM it if I'm allowed.
Did you have a chance to run the build/test against all supporte
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
If this point was reached, it would break Win32, plus
any other system which didn't have an ldd in the PATH.
Perhaps Apache::TestConfig::which() could be used to
see if an ldd() [or otool()] is present, and skip this
part if it's not found?
I gues
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
What happens is:
requested: http://localhost:8536/TestModules__proxy
"proxied to": http://localhost:8536/TestModules__proxy_real
But if I directly request
http://localhost:8536/TestModules__proxy_real
Assume 8536 == 8537 .. sorry for the typo
--
END
Hi All,
t/modules/proxy.t works in 2.0.54, but doesn't in 2.3.01 (aka svn)
I'm wondering is this a bug in httpd, or did they just change something we
haven't caught up with yet?
What happens is:
requested: http://localhost:8536/TestModules__proxy
"proxied to": http://localhost:8536/TestModules_
11 matches
Mail list logo