Jeff Trawick wrote:
Ken's talking binbuild...
For what we distribute, certainly. But I think static
libraries should also be our default. Otherwise someone
who builds from scratch is going to run into the same
astonishment when it tries to copies home-built files
around. It'll look like it
Jim Jagielski wrote:
2. Why aren't the 1.3.22 tarballs available somewhere in the
dist tree? Jim?
Should they be? If any place, they should be in a subdir, and not
in the main dist level, IMO.
They sure should be. For example, right now people have nothing
to download to put
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:34:20PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
protocol.c: In function `ap_rgetline':
protocol.c:424: warning: assignment of read-only variable `c'
previously: const char c;
Well, it didn't give a warning on Linux with gcc. We all know how
good a compiler *that* is.
But,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:00:06PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
httpd, htpasswd, htdigest, and the other main applications need
to be built with static libraries. In other words, they must
not be linked against libapr.so and friends.
Why? Because otherwise we make life difficult
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 07:43:36AM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
I've already added this for our various support binaries:
--enable-static-htpasswd
...
I see no reason why we couldn't do the same for httpd. I agree that it
may make life easier for binbuild users, but I'm totally against
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 12:18:51PM -0600, William Rowe wrote:
From: Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 12:09 PM
I had thought that on platforms that supported it, we would prefer
the anonymous shared memory (as we were using before) to a name-based
Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:00:06PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
httpd, htpasswd, htdigest, and the other main applications need
to be built with static libraries. In other words, they must
not be linked against libapr.so and friends.
Why? Because
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
trawick 02/01/30 03:56:26
Modified:server/mpm/worker worker.c
Log:
get rid of a bunch of warnings about unused variables
Thanks for catching that. I really need to start adding
-Wall to all my makefiles
--Brian
From something that happened a couple of days ago on Daedalus..
The parent died, but the children hung around. That shouldn't
happen, and is a showstopper (but I'm not listing it as one
yet in case I'm missing something).
If the parent dies, shouldn't the children get the equivalent
of SIGPIPE
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 11:30:23AM -0500, Greg Ames wrote:
I see no reason why we couldn't do the same for httpd. I agree that it
may make life easier for binbuild users,
that would be most excellent
but I'm totally against doing
this
Bill Stoddard wrote:
In addition to the cgid daemon pool, I also believe we need
Jeff's retry logic. The combination should provide good
performance and robustness.
And if we exhaust the retries, throw a 503 rather than a 500.
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini
Aaron Bannert wrote:
I've already added this for our various support binaries:
--enable-static-htpasswd
Having to explicitly specify this to make it happen is not on;
it needs to be the default. Having to specify for each individual
util is also bogus; there should be a switch, defaulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ianh02/01/30 10:05:26
Modified:modules/experimental mod_cache.c
Log:
out damn warnings out
Index: mod_cache.c
===
RCS file:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ianh02/01/30 10:05:26
Modified:modules/experimental mod_cache.c
Log:
out damn warnings out
Index: mod_cache.c
===
RCS file:
From something that happened a couple of days ago on Daedalus..
The parent died, but the children hung around. That shouldn't
happen, and is a showstopper (but I'm not listing it as one
yet in case I'm missing something).
Yea I agree this is a showstopper...
If the parent dies, shouldn't
They are in httpd-docs-1.3/apidoc/. So looks like apache-devsite
needs a trival link fix
apache-devsite is dead. I've done the right things to get
the API dictionary back online, at
URL:http://httpd.apache.org/dev/apidoc/.
Thanks for pointing it out..
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar,
Aaron Bannert wrote:
I tried sticking --disable-shared for apr and apr-util in httpd's configure.in.
That doesn't work any more if you try to build the modules shared.
I think all you have to do is pass -static to the libtool link command
for httpd. I'll be able to fool around with this
Bill Stoddard wrote:
If the parent dies, shouldn't the children get the equivalent
of SIGPIPE on the pod? However they find out, they should react
appropriately -- i.e., by committing suicide with extreme prejudice.
-1 in concept. We should not take the child processes down if
the
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 12:00:23PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
I've already added this for our various support binaries:
--enable-static-htpasswd
Having to explicitly specify this to make it happen is not on;
it needs to be the default. Having to specify
Bill Stoddard wrote:
If the parent dies, shouldn't the children get the equivalent
of SIGPIPE on the pod? However they find out, they should react
appropriately -- i.e., by committing suicide with extreme prejudice.
-1 in concept. We should not take the child processes down if
From: Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:29 PM
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 01:20:49PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
This is especially true on my OSX box - after make install, the DYLD path
info is not updated, so all binaries are broken. apachectl at
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 01:20:49PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Certainly would agree there. httpd has dozens of modules loading anyways,
and benefits greatly from the apachectl configuration of the DYLD path,
etc. Even linking httpd static causes headaches for dynamic modules, when
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Would you rather your entire website get whacked and go off
line when this happens, or would you rather be able to set
StartServers to an appropriately high number and set
MaxRequestPerChild to 0 to enable your site to stay up?
I would rather have our free no-support
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Would you rather your entire website get whacked and go off
line when this happens, or would you rather be able to set
StartServers to an appropriately high number and set
MaxRequestPerChild to 0 to enable your site to stay up?
I would rather have our free
Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 12:00:23PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
I've already added this for our various support binaries:
--enable-static-htpasswd
Having to explicitly specify this to make it happen is not on;
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Not so. If you know your site has this problem and you can't fix it for whatever
reason,
you can preemptively set MaxRequestsPerChild to 0 or some suitably high number to
give the
admin time to notice the problem when it occurs. It is wrong to whack
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:13:52 -0500
Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I think I disagree; what you're describing is, essentially,
relying on good luck, hoping for the best, and ignoring the
problem and hoping it will go away. IIRC, what Greg
observed was the children
I don't know what version of gcc you are using, but gcc 2.95.3 and gcc
3.0.3 give me a warning. gcc has always issued that warning for me as
long as I can remember.
David
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:34:20PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
protocol.c: In function
Any important site that relies on uptime -should- have some thought
already put into it. If something fails, some procedure immediately
takes steps to fix it, i.e. a watchdog that restarts apache.
If you don't have something like this in place and you are relying so
heavily on uptime, you
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Not so. If you know your site has this problem and you can't fix it for whatever
reason,
you can preemptively set MaxRequestsPerChild to 0 or some suitably high number to
give
the
admin time to notice the problem when it occurs. It is wrong to
Any important site that relies on uptime -should- have some thought
already put into it. If something fails, some procedure immediately
takes steps to fix it, i.e. a watchdog that restarts apache.
Yep.
If you don't have something like this in place and you are relying so
heavily on
Not acked. Is this a PMC decision?
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
Millenium hand and shrimp!
---BeginMessage---
I noticed you no longer have pre-compiled binaries of Apache for NextStep
I don't know about other sites, but the servers I manage tend to start
showing oddness rather quickly when something goes wrong. I would
rather have a clean and quick restart than have a degradation in
service. With that said, I don't know of many people who would rely on
this feature.
As
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Not acked. Is this a PMC decision?
I'm guessing, but it's pretty much a given that accepting 3rd party
binaries (ie: from non-PMC members) is not optimal.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|]
When the parent dies, it's bad. No doubt. You might be able to
muddle through, but it's a scenario where you're just waiting for
badness to happen.
Unfortunately, I can't think of a very good solution... Some sort
of extra parent process watchdog process would allow us to note
the parent
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 01:20:49PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Certainly would agree there. httpd has dozens of modules loading anyways,
and benefits greatly from the apachectl configuration of the DYLD path,
etc. Even linking httpd static causes
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:25:24PM -0500, Chuck Murcko wrote:
So as Graham said proxy should reply 501 or 505 right?
It doesn't matter -- HTTP/0.9 responses don't have error codes.
You just have to return an HTML page that tells the user to get out
of their rocking chair and upgrade the client
From: Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 10:08 AM
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 12:18:51PM -0600, William Rowe wrote:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 12:09 PM
I had thought that on platforms that supported it, we would prefer
the anonymous shared memory (as
APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/01/21 19:34:31 $]
Release:
1.3.23: Tagged Jan 21, 2002.
1.3.22: Tagged Oct 8, 2001. Announced Oct 12, 2001.
1.3.21: Not released.
(Pulled for htdocs/manual config
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/01/30 16:53:44 $]
Release:
2.0.31 : In development
2.0.30 : tagged January 8, 2002. not rolled.
2.0.29 : tagged November 27, 2001. not rolled.
2.0.28 : released
I've tagged 31.
the plan is to roll within 48 hours if nothing major breaks (which can't
be fixed in the tag)
so.. please try it out on your machines and yell if something breaks
if all goes well we'll have another beta on our hands
..Ian, Aaron, Justin
GET //__not HTTP/1.1
host: roshi.collab.net:8080
depth: 1
HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 05:38:51 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.31-dev (Unix) DAV/2 SVN/0.8.0
Vary: accept-language
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 810
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
...
Apache 1.3 would
Title: Virtual directory for remote machine
Hi,
How can I create a virtual directory (alias) in apache, mapped to a physical directory on another machine in the local net, as I can map in IIS, for example: \\172.xx.xx.xx\d$\temp. In IIS defining of such a directory requires filling of
Apache 2.0.31 got tagged this evening, the php/zend code has been out of
sync with it for a bit now.
Would anyone mind chit chatting and getting the appropriate code
updated? :)
I'd like to help, but I'm rather new to the code. If I'm speaking to
the wrong people, please let me know.
44 matches
Mail list logo
