Which ones? You mean the special case one?
Would it be better if we did that *before* calling
the fix_cgivars(). What is there makes the following
config pair work as-is:
AddType application/x-php7-fpm .php
Action application/x-php7-fpm /fpm virtual
<Location /fpm>
SetHandler proxy:fcgi://localhost:9001
</Location>
--
<FilesMatch \.php$>
SetHandler "proxy:fcgi://localhost:9001
</FilesMatch>
By allowing fix_cgivars() after that, then we could work around
those rare cases when even that fixup isn't correct for the users
environ.
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Author: covener
> Date: Wed Feb 8 15:28:56 2017
> New Revision: 1782209
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1782209&view=rev
> Log:
> danger?
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>
> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
> URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS?rev=1782209&r1=1782208&r2=1782209&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS Wed Feb 8 15:28:56 2017
> @@ -223,6 +223,7 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
> http://svn.apache.org/r1782194
> 2.4.x patch: http://home.apache.org/~jim/patches/mod_proxy_fcgi.patch
> +1: jim
> + covener: -0.9: new fixups in here seem risky, do we really want these?
>
>
> PATCHES/ISSUES THAT ARE BEING WORKED
>
>
