On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we should also put in a directive to only compress when system load is
below a certain level. (but we would need a apr_get_system_load()
function first .. any volunteers? )
If you go down this route watch out for what's called 'back-flash'.
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
thanks to everyone who pitched in.
Thanks for all the hard work !
Dw.
* Markus Welsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
hi all,
well since apache 2.0.45 a rpm build script has beed added. is there a
chance to add a deb build script as well ?
the debian build scripts used to build the debs as released in unstable and
testing run to close to 5000 lines of code,
Markus Welsch wrote:
well since apache 2.0.45 a rpm build script has beed added. is there a
chance to add a deb build script as well ?
+1.
Is there a Debian script available anywhere that could be included under
the Apache licence?
Regards,
Graham
--
-
This is Justin's suggested logic from an earlier thread, with some minor
tweaks.
Applying this patch to the 2.0.45 tarball allowed binbuild.sh to create
a binary distribution on Linux. Prior to this change, apr configuration
would bail because it didn't support a layout called Apache.
From: Andre Malo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 3:35 AM
At 06:27 PM 4/1/2003, you wrote:
* William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
But some issues anyway:
- Shouldn't the announcement point to httpd.apache.org/download.cgi?
I though either is now an OK starting point, now
* Thom May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
* Markus Welsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
the debian build scripts used to build the debs as released in unstable and
testing run to close to 5000 lines of code, including support programs and
so on.
It's not really practical to include that, however
* Jeff Trawick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
This is Justin's suggested logic from an earlier thread, with some minor
tweaks.
Applying this patch to the 2.0.45 tarball allowed binbuild.sh to create
a binary distribution on Linux. Prior to this change, apr configuration
would bail because
Thom May wrote:
Just to follow up to myself, I'm the debian package maintainer; I'm quite
happy to contribute a cut down version to the ASF if people actually want to
do this.
I say go for it.
Regards,
Graham
--
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] There's a
Are there platforms where DSOs always or sometimes reference libapr.so
directly?
I just noticed that with 2.0.45's copy of APR we get
libapr-0.so
libaprutil-0.so
but with 2.0.44 we get
libapr.so
libaprutil.so
as the built versions of apr and apr-util.
If a DSO has a reference to
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
thanks to everyone who pitched in.
Bill
Good job everyone! Sorry I could not take a more active role in this
release.
Bill
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
SIGUSR2?
i considered that. unfortunately, i think it is less than
universal in its presence on all our platforms. maybe
SIGSTOP? its canonical interactive use is obviated by
being in a daemon environment.. except i think that would
be problematic when debugging
Can anyone tell me razonable reasons because apache must not run as
root user?
Security ... if the apache process contains a security hole and it's
executed as root it leads to root user access ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think you might find it helpful to read into the Unix-like user
system.. ;)
And really, the dev list isn't the best for this, subscribe to the
users list
HTH,
Chris Taylor - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The guy with the PS2 WebServer -
Hi Jose,
running apache as root user is extremly dangerous because
an attacker could compromise your whole system and gain
root privileges remotely.
By the way, this ain't a developer related question, is it?
In the future please post these questions on the users lists.
Bye,
Sebastian
* Jose Gutierrez wrote:
Can anyone tell me razonable reasons because apache must not run as root user?
It's not designed to be run as root. Look for example, how much effort is
taken in suexec to make sure that the sytem won't be compromised. The httpd
itself doesn't care much about such
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 06:32:10PM +0200, Jose Gutierrez wrote:
hi,
Can anyone tell me razonable reasons because apache must not
run as root user?
Thats not correct, it may run as root, but you really should
think very careful about that. The httpd is written in C, this
allows many leaks
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
So our rewrite rules apply to only one specific version? Can someone
please update that rewrite rule from s/\.44/\.45/ so that the .45 downloads
become auto-mirrored, effective now?
There are no auto-mirror rewrite rules. For a period of time
i know what a root user is (sorry if my question wasn't enought clearly
formulated):
the perchild mpm seems like nice but i think it is not enought stable. I was
thinking about the posibility of developing a simple apache module which
change the user and group for each virtualhost.
The only
H... anyone else having troubles getting binbuild.sh to create
a valid pre-built binary (not the layout stuff, btw).
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
A society that
Title: Re: running apache as root
At 6:32 PM +0200 4/2/03, Jose Gutierrez wrote:
Can anyone
tell me razonable reasons because apache must not run as root
user?
i want to
configuresapache for hosting anuniqueweb (my web) at
my dedicated server, serving php and perl cgi's. I ammainly
warred about
Jose Gutierrez wrote:
the perchild mpm seems like nice but i think it is not enought stable. I was
thinking about the posibility of developing a simple apache module which
change the user and group for each virtualhost.
The suexec module does this already - see the Apache v1.3 and v2.0 docs.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
H... anyone else having troubles getting binbuild.sh to create
a valid pre-built binary (not the layout stuff, btw).
What is the symptom you see? Something I built with binbuild.sh on RH
6.2 (after applying my layout patch) serves pages for me.
You aren't forgetting
At 11:12 AM 4/2/2003, Joshua Slive wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
So our rewrite rules apply to only one specific version? Can someone
please update that rewrite rule from s/\.44/\.45/ so that the .45 downloads
become auto-mirrored, effective now?
Then let's first fix
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Second, can we add the 'choose mirror' dropdown into HEADER.html?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. What would be the result of
choosing a mirror in this drop-down? Would you be taken to the same
directory in the mirror that you
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:17:25PM +0200, Jose Gutierrez wrote:
moin,
snip
the perchild mpm seems like nice but i think it is not enought stable. I was
thinking about the posibility of developing a simple apache module which
change the user and group for each virtualhost.
metuxmpm.
already
Somehow we lost the group search x bit on the binaries/win32 directory.
Could wrowe or root please replace it.
Thanks.
Joshua.
Now fixed
At 01:33 PM 4/2/2003, you wrote:
Somehow we lost the group search x bit on the binaries/win32 directory.
Could wrowe or root please replace it.
Thanks.
Joshua.
28 matches
Mail list logo
