Thx for the bug report... I'll investigate.
On Nov 15, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Kyle Johnson osma...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been attempting to test the uds support on 2.4.x with the uds patch
(http://people.apache.org/~jim/patches/uds-2.4.patch).
I'm assuming HTTP works (it would appear based on
The below is the pertinent parts:
On Nov 15, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Kyle Johnson osma...@gmail.com wrote:
[proxy_fcgi:debug] [pid 30116:tid 140366778955520] mod_proxy_fcgi.c(764):
[client 66.192.178.3:54534] AH01076: url: fcgi://localhost:8000/www/index.php
proxyname: (null) proxyport: 0
On Nov 15, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Kyle Johnson osma...@gmail.com wrote:
[proxy_fcgi:debug] [pid 30116:tid 140366778955520] mod_proxy_fcgi.c(73):
[client 66.192.178.3:54534] AH01060: set r-filename to
proxy:fcgi://localhost:8000/www/index.php
Also need to see if the above is a factor...
OK, I think I know what it is, and it's simple (if true),
but a pain.
The issue is that during the proxypass stuff, we tuck away the
name, which may, or may not, include a port designation, depending
on if the URL passed does. All well and good.
The problem is that during the
FWIW, this isn't related to UDS at all, except that we
found this bug due to UDS.
On Nov 16, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
OK, I think I know what it is, and it's simple (if true),
but a pain.
The issue is that during the proxypass stuff, we tuck away the
name,
I've been attempting to test the uds support on 2.4.x with the uds patch (
http://people.apache.org/~jim/patches/uds-2.4.patch).
I'm assuming HTTP works (it would appear based on the mailing list that the
author has been tested it with HTTP). However, when I try using fcgi the
socket appears to
