On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, John K Sterling wrote:
> FYI -
> i pulled down the HEAD and tested it.
> all worked great.
sweet. miller time!
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED
FYI -
i pulled down the HEAD and tested it.
all worked great.
sterling
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> ok, i have done: perl -pi -e 's/\cM//' mod_perl.dsp
> and committed.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additi
- Original Message -
From: "John K Sterling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Doug MacEachern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Randy Kobes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] win32
ok, i have done: perl -pi -e 's/\cM//' mod_perl.dsp
and committed.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Doug MacEachern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John K Sterling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Randy Kobes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] win32
ok, i've added it as a normal text file. randy, do you need to strip out
the ^M's ?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> thanks, works like a charm. curious, should mod_perl.dsp be cvs add-ed
> with -kb? i seem to recall cvs changing the file (stripping ^M's ?)
welp, i've always had a problem when those ^M's are there - i don't think
that file should be binary - when i pull from cvs on win32 that .dsp file
(Apa
thanks, works like a charm. curious, should mod_perl.dsp be cvs add-ed
with -kb? i seem to recall cvs changing the file (stripping ^M's ?)
i also added mod_perl.def to the MANIFEST, we don't want to include
mod_perl.mak or do we?
how does this work for you?
this includes my change to INSTALL.win32
sterling
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> sweet, great work guys. the patch i have from randy seems to be truncated
> (the tarball with mod_perl.{dsp,mak.def} looks ok though. sterls can you
> send me the current patch against curr
sweet, great work guys. the patch i have from randy seems to be truncated
(the tarball with mod_perl.{dsp,mak.def} looks ok though. sterls can you
send me the current patch against current cvs? thanks!
-
To unsubscribe, e-ma
.
sterling
Randy Kobes wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "John K Sterling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Randy Kobes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 7:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] w
in a couple of days.
sterling
Randy Kobes wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "John K Sterling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Randy Kobes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 7:29 PM
> S
- Original Message -
From: "John K Sterling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Randy Kobes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] win32 module names now like unix
> sounds great randy - do
sounds great randy - do what you gotta do - i'll check it out on the other end
testing/proofing
sterling
Randy Kobes wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, John K Sterling wrote:
>
> > sorry it took so long to respond i had some 'real work' issues :) anyhoo, i am
> > really torn on this one. I still th
sounds great -
i'm sure doug wouldn't think of releaseing without it. Let me know if you
need anything else ... obviously i'll test/proof the final patch.
sterling
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Randy Kobes wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, John K Sterling wrote:
>
> > sorry it took so long to respond i h
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, John K Sterling wrote:
> sorry it took so long to respond i had some 'real work' issues :) anyhoo, i am
> really torn on this one. I still think mod_perl should immediately just switch
> to the new-style .so - mod_perl has always been the closest darling to apache so
> it on
erling
Randy Kobes wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "John K Sterling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Randy Kobes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 11:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] win32 modul
i'd support whatever you guys decide on for win32 land. sterls, if you
wanna let me know if i should apply your patch from yesterday or wait for
another, that'd be choice.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additi
- Original Message -
From: "John K Sterling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Randy Kobes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] win32 module names now like unix
>
>
> Randy Kobes
Randy Kobes wrote:
> would people get
> too confused if a mod_perl.so was installed if they were building
> against apache_1.3.12, say? Should we have an Apache version
> check in there to use mod_perl.so for 1.3.15 and ApacheModulePerl.dll
> for pre-1.3.15?
Great point - this would also allow
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, John K Sterling wrote:
> as stated in my earlier post, apache-1.3.15-dev was just changed so all
> modules on win32 look exactly like unix (e.g. mod_status.so). i
> proposed we should stay in sync with the httpd group. here is a minimal
> patch that seems to work: note
> 1)
> yeah, its .so
> take a look at the thread on new-httpd
>
> basically on win32 it really don't matter none what the extension is
> microsoft .ocx files and .cpl files are apparently just dlls with a
different
> suffix.
>
Yes, I know. I just wanted to be sure
Gerald
--
yeah, its .so
take a look at the thread on new-httpd
basically on win32 it really don't matter none what the extension is
microsoft .ocx files and .cpl files are apparently just dlls with a different
suffix.
sterling
Gerald Richter wrote:
> > 2) only the ApacheModulePerl.dll has been chang
> 2) only the ApacheModulePerl.dll has been changed to mod_perl.so to
> limit the diff
I didn't take a look at 1.3.15, but shouldn't it be mod_perl.dll instead of
mod_perl.so on win32 ? Or do they really use the .so extension also on win32
?
Gerald
-
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> good work, thanks sterls! what do people think about
> this general renaming of ApacheModuleFoo.dll to
> mod_foo.so in win32 land? good? bad? i guess this is
> the 2.0 convention, so we might as well get used to it.
it makes me wet.
---
if anyone needs some background there was a huge thread on new-httpd about
this over the past few days with
Subject: [Win32] 1.3.15; my mod_foo.dll question on the table
many people chimed in and there are some interesting points... the biggest
benefit is being able to use the exact same conf fi
good work, thanks sterls! what do people think about this general
renaming of ApacheModuleFoo.dll to mod_foo.so in win32 land? good? bad?
i guess this is the 2.0 convention, so we might as well get used to it.
-
To unsubscrib
27 matches
Mail list logo
