Is anyone interested in being the maintainer for the Apache package?
The current maintainer is MIA.
--
Christopher Faylor spammer? -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cygwin Co-Project Leader[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TimeSys, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Is anyone interested in being the maintainer for the Apache package?
> The current maintainer is MIA.
I would like to volunteer for this.
Brian
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
D
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 05:19:12PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Is anyone interested in being the maintainer for the Apache package?
>>The current maintainer is MIA.
>
>I would like to volunteer for this.
Great! You've got the job and a gold star to boot.
Please send
Brian Dessent wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> Is anyone interested in being the maintainer for the Apache package?
>> The current maintainer is MIA.
>
> I would like to volunteer for this.
Hi Brian,
Do you intend to maintain Apache 1 or Apache 2?
Max.
--
Unsubscribe info: http:/
Max Bowsher wrote:
>
> Brian Dessent wrote:
> > Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> >> Is anyone interested in being the maintainer for the Apache package?
> >> The current maintainer is MIA.
> >
> > I would like to volunteer for this.
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Do you intend to maintain Apache 1 or Apache 2
Brian Dessent wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>>
>> Brian Dessent wrote:
>>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>
Is anyone interested in being the maintainer for the Apache package?
The current maintainer is MIA.
>>>
>>> I would like to volunteer for this.
>>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> Do you intend to mai
Max Bowsher wrote:
> > I hadn't planned to package 2.x because its native win32 version would
> > be significantly faster with a thread MPM than a Cygwin port. But I
> > suppose a Cygwin version would be useful if you wanted to test or
> > develop things that are destined for a 2.x/Unix machine.
Brian Dessent wrote:
I hadn't planned to package 2.x because its native win32 version would
be significantly faster with a thread MPM than a Cygwin port. But I
suppose a Cygwin version would be useful if you wanted to test or
develop things that are destined for a 2.x/Unix machine. I also don't
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 07:18:42AM -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>BTW: Thanks for volunteering for this. Does this mean that a Cygwin
>version of mod_php would be working again?
I hope so. This is one of the reasons that I asked for a new maintainer.
I should have made that clearer.
cgf
--
Unsu
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> My understanding is that the Cygwin port of Apache 1.x is also
> significantly slower than the native Apache 1.x but this didn't stop
> people from wanting a Cygwin version of 1.x. Or is there something in
> 2.x (this thread MPM thing) that would make a Cygwin port of Apach
Brian Dessent wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
My understanding is that the Cygwin port of Apache 1.x is also
significantly slower than the native Apache 1.x but this didn't stop
people from wanting a Cygwin version of 1.x. Or is there something in
2.x (this thread MPM thing) that would make a Cygwi
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> When you start Apache you can specify how many subprocesses to run. Thus
> start up can be expensive. And I know that Apache will start new
> processes if need be - presumably if you have a lot of hits. But for us
> relatively low hit guys I think we can live with the once
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 08:55:02AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Okay, I'll take that as an enthusiastic request for an apache2 package.
FWIW: Me too! I think an apache2 package would be a very useful addition.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem repor
On Thu, 27 May 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 08:55:02AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
> >Okay, I'll take that as an enthusiastic request for an apache2 package.
>
> FWIW: Me too! I think an apache2 package would be a very useful addition.
>
> cgf
Ditto.
Perhaps this s
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 12:09:29PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Thu, 27 May 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 08:55:02AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>>>Okay, I'll take that as an enthusiastic request for an apache2 package.
>>
>>FWIW: Me too! I think an apache2 packag
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> Perhaps this should be moved to cygwin-apps (which Brian, as all other
Been subscribed for some time now, and redirecting...
> maintainers, will have to subscribe to anyway), but one more point while
> we're on the subject of Apache: maybe it's time to revisit the apac
Brian Dessent wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>> Would you suspect that you could get Apache 2.x to use threads under
Cygwin?
>
> Yes, but I have not tried.
Not without some debugging work. I compiled 2.0.49 with worker MPM (i.e.
threads), but lots of requests failed to be handled.
2.0.49 with pre
Igor Pechtchanski schrieb:
> maybe it's time to revisit the apache
postinstall procedure (both the rebase issue and the /var/www one).
FWIW, one idea on the latter is splitting out the documents into a
separate package (apache-docs?), installing over the manual, and using
postinstall to set up the
18 matches
Mail list logo
