On 10/10/2008 04:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd
> like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to
> release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll
> close the vote on Tues AM.
>
>
+1 for release.
Tested on
Solaris
On Oct 11, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
SunOS solaris10 5.10 Generic_137112-02 i86pc i386 i86pc
(in addition, tested SSL functionality with the nCipher plugin and
OpenSSL 0.9.8i from Sunfreeware, with positive result)
Oh yeah, I forgot. Used gcc by virtue of not bothering to specif
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd
like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to
release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll
close the vote on Tues AM.
-1
Doesn't build on Windows.
apr-util included doesn't include the
bac
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd
like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to
release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll
close the vote on Tues AM.
-1
Doesn't build on Windows.
apr-util included doe
I've managed to create a workaround for this issue with GetTcpTable().
The only remaining issue I have is that I don't want to call this too
often. I want to hold on to the data with a time-to-live during which
I'll assume the data has not changed.
That's all easy enough except for locking. Th
Hi,
Send this to the wrong address first time. May have saved the GetTcpTable
coding.
Here is a usec timeout fix, although I wouldn't go below 100 milliseconds
without some testing under load. I'm not sure its the perfect way to do it, but
it avoids changing the "connectiontimeout" parameter
Perhaps I misunderstand things here, but isn't this connection timeout
setting used for more than just the timing out the initial formation of
the connection? It would seem that logical that there would be a
connection timeout for forming the initial connection and another for
timeouts of resp
On 10/13/2008 12:50 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
> Perhaps I misunderstand things here, but isn't this connection timeout
> setting used for more than just the timing out the initial formation of
> the connection? It would seem that logical that there would be a
> connection timeout for forming the ini
Mladen Turk wrote:
>
> -1
> Doesn't build on Windows.
>
> apr-util included doesn't include the
> backport of r667437, so it break compiles with
> nasty warnings
>
> .\dbd\apr_dbd.c(101) : warning C4013: 'apu_dso_init' undefined
> .\dbd\apr_dbd.c(148) : warning C4013: 'apu_dso_mutex_lock' undefi
Mladen Turk wrote:
>
> Oops. Wrong archive file (used 2.2.9 instead 2.2.10)
> Builds fine, so +1
> Windows 32
> Windows 64
Same here; +1 - .zip and .msi including 0.9.8i will be along shortly.
> Sorry for the noise :)
And I need to read entire threads :)
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Mladen Turk wrote:
>> Oops. Wrong archive file (used 2.2.9 instead 2.2.10)
>> Builds fine, so +1
>> Windows 32
>> Windows 64
>
> Same here; +1 - .zip and .msi including 0.9.8i will be along shortly.
.msi*'s to direct at /dist/httpd/binaries/win32/, -symbols.zip*'s to
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
12 matches
Mail list logo