Geoffrey Young wrote:
I don't understand why did you have this problem (what did you have in
@INC?), but I think that this just works around the problem. It's better
to go up to where $self->{inc} is getting set and not let invalid values
in, so if you use $self->{inc} you won't have to workaround
> I don't understand why did you have this problem (what did you have in
> @INC?), but I think that this just works around the problem. It's better
> to go up to where $self->{inc} is getting set and not let invalid values
> in, so if you use $self->{inc} you won't have to workaround again.
I was
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
I think this misleading error is really a bug in Apache:
I agree.
[Mon Apr 26 15:28:44 2004] [error] server reached MaxClients setting,
consider raising the MaxClients setting
It sounds like a one-off bug to me. It reports that error when the
number o
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
I think this misleading error is really a bug in Apache:
[Mon Apr 26 15:28:44 2004] [error] server reached MaxClients setting,
consider raising the MaxClients setting
It sounds like a one-off bug to me.
the only issue I see is that now both 1.0 and 2.0 env
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
geoff 2004/04/28 07:55:42
Modified:perl-framework/Apache-Test/lib/Apache TestConfigPerl.pm
Log:
prevent 'Empty compile time value given to use lib' warnings
Revision ChangesPath
1.88 +1 -0 httpd-test/perl-framework/Apache-Test/lib/Apach
Stas Bekman wrote:
I think this misleading error is really a bug in Apache:
I agree.
[Mon Apr 26 15:28:44 2004] [error] server reached MaxClients setting,
consider raising the MaxClients setting
It sounds like a one-off bug to me. It reports that error when the
number of workers is the same as M
Stas Bekman wrote:
> I think this misleading error is really a bug in Apache:
>
> [Mon Apr 26 15:28:44 2004] [error] server reached MaxClients setting,
> consider raising the MaxClients setting
> It sounds like a one-off bug to me.
the only issue I see is that now both 1.0 and 2.0 environments
