> wrowe 02/01/31 22:21:34
>
> Modified:locks/win32 locks.c
> Log:
> Win32 mod_rewrite was broken by the implicit assumption that fname would
> have a value. Of course, fname may be NULL, in which case this patch
> from 1.46 broke any NULL locking. Correct the Local/Glo
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> +1 ... offer patches !-)
okay... you and justin asked for it :) attached is a patch to fix up all
the naming and add apu_strings.c to the build. separately attached is
apu_strings.h and apu_strings.c which implement the apr_getword* functions
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 06:21:59AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> jerenkrantz02/01/31 22:21:59
>
> Modified:.ABOUT_APACHE
> Log:
> Update some of the URLs and notes that have gotten stale.
Ian,
This one might be worth bumping the tag on. Considering someone
might actua
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 06:05:52AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> aaron 02/01/31 22:05:51
>
> Modified:.STATUS
> Log:
> ** Vote if you will not support a GA until perchild is portable. **
I don't think this is a big enough issue to keep us from GA, but
if the group th
Greg Ames wrote:
> ...since Thursday, 31-Jan-2002 19:04:06 PST.
Cool.
we're running it for our developers internally starting tomorrow.
>
> Beside checking out the tag, it has the usual patch to save the input buffers
> for debugging, and a quick-n-dirty hack to exit the child without killing
From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 7:05 PM
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 03:53:29PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > When we *do* go GA, are we planning on keeping this numbering?
> > I think it'll confuse and dismay the public..
>
> AIUI, I think
+1 ... offer patches !-) We have a few string functions such as the
version-sort that aught to move to an apr-util strings library in the
first place.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 6:55 PM
Subject: server/ut
...since Thursday, 31-Jan-2002 19:04:06 PST.
Beside checking out the tag, it has the usual patch to save the input buffers
for debugging, and a quick-n-dirty hack to exit the child without killing the
parent if accept() gets ENFILE (system out of fd's).
I did have to futz with the config file
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 03:53:29PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Eh.. 2.0.31 and climbing..
>
> When we *do* go GA, are we planning on keeping this numbering?
Didn't we decide the answer to that question months and months
ago after several lengthy flame wars?
Tony.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 06:40:01PM -0500, Dale Ghent wrote:
> From a users' standpoint, it would seem more like a bug in apache if
> s/he tries to shut apache down via apachectl, and then start it back up.
>
> First, the shutdown will fail, because the ppid is no-longer existing
> (and thus produ
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 05:23:05PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >...
> > yeah, interesting point - that function could be kept in the apache tree
> > if pcre dependencies are unacceptable. All the rest of the functions
> > belong in apr-util.
>
> I'd
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 08:33:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > I don't have an issue with the numbering, but bouncing 2.0.* to GA to alpha and
>back
again
> > will be confusing as hell to a lot of people, especially to folks who develop and
>sell
> > specialized Apache modules (RSA ClearT
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 08:33:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> I don't have an issue with the numbering, but bouncing 2.0.* to GA to alpha and back
>again
> will be confusing as hell to a lot of people, especially to folks who develop and
>sell
> specialized Apache modules (RSA ClearTrust, Net
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 05:23:05PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> yeah, interesting point - that function could be kept in the apache tree
> if pcre dependencies are unacceptable. All the rest of the functions
> belong in apr-util.
I'd rather see some more thought applied, than "move the
> On 31 Jan 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> | Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |
> | > | > Yeah, I see that, too. I have to add '-lthread -lpthread' to the
> | > | > src/Makefile manually.
> |
> | What is the actual symptom you see if you don't do that?
>
> I don't know, i've always been ad
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 03:53:29PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > When we *do* go GA, are we planning on keeping this numbering?
> > I think it'll confuse and dismay the public..
>
> AIUI, I think we will be keeping this numbering. I don't think
> it'll confuse the public because whe
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 04:55:30PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi -
> >
> > I don't recall if this has been proposed before, but I keep finding myself
> > wanting various string functionality that lives in server/util.c outside
> > of apache
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 04:15:38PM -0500, David Ford wrote:
> 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? :)
FWIW, I think DougM has made the appropriate in
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 03:53:29PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> When we *do* go GA, are we planning on keeping this numbering?
> I think it'll confuse and dismay the public..
AIUI, I think we will be keeping this numbering. I don't think
it'll confuse the public because when we release
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 04:55:30PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi -
>
> I don't recall if this has been proposed before, but I keep finding myself
> wanting various string functionality that lives in server/util.c outside
> of apache - what do you say we move it all to apr-util? lots of CO
I've seen similar error on HPUX also - some versions of libc (on HPUX) has
dependency on TLS (thread local storage) symbols - which requires that you
link specifically with lpthread.. This is done mainly for performance
reasons.. I suspect something similar to be happening on Solaris too - just
a
Hi -
I don't recall if this has been proposed before, but I keep finding myself
wanting various string functionality that lives in server/util.c outside
of apache - what do you say we move it all to apr-util? lots of COOL
functions in there (coincidentally written by rob mcCOOL).
sterling
Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We turn on HAVE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT in src/include/ap_config.h
> for Solaris. We do not add -lpthread to the link.
>
> That doesn't look good.
and guess who screwed it up in the first place... me...
time for a different hobby...
--
Jeff Trawi
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
| I was refering to the situation where the kids don't auto-suicide
| upon being orphaned. If they don't, the picking them off is tough
| out-of-process.
|
| It's looking like we need a decision vote:
| If the parent process dies, should the remaining chi
On 31 Jan 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
| Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > | > Yeah, I see that, too. I have to add '-lthread -lpthread' to the
| > | > src/Makefile manually.
|
| What is the actual symptom you see if you don't do that?
I don't know, i've always been adding to LIBS in the
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 05:59:05PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> It's looking like we need a decision vote:
> If the parent process dies, should the remaining child processes
> "gracefully" self-terminate.
>
> Yes: Jim
> No:
I added an entry in STATUS for this and recorded my vote. -- justin
Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | > Yeah, I see that, too. I have to add '-lthread -lpthread' to the
> | > src/Makefile manually.
What is the actual symptom you see if you don't do that?
> "All calls to libthread and libpthread are no-ops if the application does
> not link -lthread or
On 31 Jan 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
| Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > On 31 Jan 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
| >
| > | We turn on HAVE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT in src/include/ap_config.h
| > | for Solaris. We do not add -lpthread to the link.
| > |
| > | That doesn't look good.
| > |
Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >
> > We turn on HAVE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT in src/include/ap_config.h
> > for Solaris. We do not add -lpthread to the link.
> >
> > That doesn't look good.
> >
> > Can anyone confirm?
> >
>
> Confirmed on both... but for
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 05:33:19PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> mod_cgi.c on 1.3 makes this call:
>
> if ((retval = ap_setup_client_block(r, REQUEST_CHUNKED_ERROR)))
> return retval;
>
> If I understand this, a browser cannot send chunked content to a cgi on the server.
>Why
> not use REQUE
Martin Kraemer wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 05:42:33PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> > But the parent dying doesn't imply the child processes also kicking
> > the bucket (as we've seen).
>
> And that's rather easy to do, and IMHO it should be added to the children.
> (that was what I
> But in theory this could also happen with HTTP/1.0 if a client asks for
> /blah and doesn't include a host header - in this case the gateway has
> no way of figuring out who to connect to, and must fail as I understand
> it with "505 Upgrade Dammnit". Am I right?
It can fail however it likes --
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 11:39:29PM +0100, Kraemer, Martin wrote:
> And we don't dechunk them to a file, but we pipe them to the module (which
I meant: but we "pipe" them (it#s of course not a real pipe(2)).
Martin
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Fujitsu Siemens
Fon: +49-89-636-46021, FA
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 05:42:33PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> But the parent dying doesn't imply the child processes also kicking
> the bucket (as we've seen).
And that's rather easy to do, and IMHO it should be added to the children.
(that was what I said about kill(getppid(),0) or getppid
Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> We turn on HAVE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT in src/include/ap_config.h
> for Solaris. We do not add -lpthread to the link.
>
> That doesn't look good.
>
> Can anyone confirm?
>
Confirmed on both... but for some reason the compile/link/run seems
to work... Weird!
--
===
Martin Kraemer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 04:36:24PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > 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.
>
> But it's easier to handle if you have a cro
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 05:33:19PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> mod_cgi.c on 1.3 makes this call:
>
> if ((retval = ap_setup_client_block(r, REQUEST_CHUNKED_ERROR)))
> return retval;
>
> If I understand this, a browser cannot send chunked content to a cgi on the server.
>Why
> not use REQUE
From: "Martin Kraemer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:19 PM
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 03:49:29PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > -1 here, [...]
>
> > [this was not a veto]
>
> What's the difference between -1 and a veto? Have rules changed?
Since this is voti
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 04:36:24PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 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.
But it's easier to handle if you have a cron job which monitors the
parent and r
mod_cgi.c on 1.3 makes this call:
if ((retval = ap_setup_client_block(r, REQUEST_CHUNKED_ERROR)))
return retval;
If I understand this, a browser cannot send chunked content to a cgi on the server. Why
not use REQUEST_CHUNKED_DECHUNK?
Bill
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 03:49:29PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> -1 here, [...]
> [this was not a veto]
What's the difference between -1 and a veto? Have rules changed?
Martin
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Fujitsu Siemens
Fon: +49-89-636-46021, FAX: +49-89-636-47655 | 81730
Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 31 Jan 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> | We turn on HAVE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT in src/include/ap_config.h
> | for Solaris. We do not add -lpthread to the link.
> |
> | That doesn't look good.
> |
> | Can anyone confirm?
>
> Yeah, I see that, too. I
On 31 Jan 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
| We turn on HAVE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT in src/include/ap_config.h
| for Solaris. We do not add -lpthread to the link.
|
| That doesn't look good.
|
| Can anyone confirm?
Yeah, I see that, too. I have to add '-lthread -lpthread' to the
src/Makefile manual
From: "Ian Holsman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 2:23 PM
> +1
> doing it now.
> should we also bump the mod_alias so it has ken's recent fix in it?
-1 here, IMHO that's relatively untested and an ancient issue - I suspect
other areas have Location: issues as well. Leave
Greg Ames wrote:
>
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 05:44:38PM -0500, Greg Ames wrote:
> > > > I'll leave it alone for an hour or two and then restart it unless
> > > > someone volunteers to investigate this.
> > >
> > > I just bounced us back to 2_0_28. Thanks for poin
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.
Apache c
Greg Ames wrote:
>
> Are we creating another migration task here?
Not any more. Although if a config has something completely
bogus, like
Redirect /foo ugly-non-abs_path
we'll throw a 500 server-side rather than the client
doing whatever client-specific thing it would otherwise
do (or not do)
We turn on HAVE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT in src/include/ap_config.h
for Solaris. We do not add -lpthread to the link.
That doesn't look good.
Can anyone confirm?
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Are we going to do something Linux-like and have development
> streams numbered 2.odd.x and the golden releases 2.even.x?
You would have to do it the other way round, except you wanted to
start GA with 2.2.0 :-)
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-berg
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>>should we also bump the mod_alias so it has ken's recent fix in it?
>>
>
> *shrug* You tagged 2.0.31, I figure it's your call. Just beware
> of feeping creaturism.. :-)
>
fine by me.
it can wait.
I'll make a release note or something abo
Eh.. 2.0.31 and climbing..
When we *do* go GA, are we planning on keeping this numbering?
I think it'll confuse and dismay the public..
Are we going to do something Linux-like and have development
streams numbered 2.odd.x and the golden releases 2.even.x?
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamga
Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> should we also bump the mod_alias so it has ken's recent fix in it?
*shrug* You tagged 2.0.31, I figure it's your call. Just beware
of feeping creaturism.. :-)
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>>As things stand at this instant, maybe. If I can get the
>>netpath prefixing correctly, it will continue to function
>>as it does now (but w/o violating HTTP) and only issue a
>>warning message to the log.
>>
>
> Okey, I've got a
Greg Ames wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>gregames02/01/31 11:54:53
>>
>> Modified:.STATUS
>> modules/mappers mod_dir.c
>> Log:
>> fix redirects for directories. fixup_dir was munging the URI before other
>> fixup hooks (such as fixup_redir in mod_alias) h
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> As things stand at this instant, maybe. If I can get the
> netpath prefixing correctly, it will continue to function
> as it does now (but w/o violating HTTP) and only issue a
> warning message to the log.
Okey, I've got a handle on this now, I think; commit co
Greg Ames wrote:
>
> I glanced at the doc for RedirectMatch after Ken's commit, and
> didn't see any words about absolute URLs. Redirect has them though.
RedirectMatch refers to Redirect; inheritance. :-)
> What does the 1.3 code do?
If the completed substitution target isn't an absoluteURI,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> gregames02/01/31 11:54:53
>
> Modified:.STATUS
>modules/mappers mod_dir.c
> Log:
> fix redirects for directories. fixup_dir was munging the URI before other
> fixup hooks (such as fixup_redir in mod_alias) had a chance to redi
Joshua Slive wrote:
> In fact, this configuration looks terribly invalid. It should be
> RedirectMatch /build/tomcat/(.*)
> http://jakarta.apache.org/build.jakarta-tomcat/$1
> Or even better
> Redirect /build/tomcat/ http://jakarta.apache.org/build.jakarta-tomcat/
>
> We should be returning an
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> What about a compromise for 1.3: Log it as an error but don't bork the
> request; just let it through with the bad location header?
Now that the issue has surfaced, it needs to be handled. I'm
-1 on a 'fix' that perpetuates RFC-noncompliant behaviour.
The minimalist 'rig
"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
>
> > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> >
> > No, I don't think this stops a roll by any means -- but it
> > *does* stop it from being GA.
>
> Is the bug in 1.3? Then what's the showstopper?
Apache, being a reference implementation of the HTTP RFCs, is
in violation
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Ian Holsman wrote:
> >
> > I don't think we should be forcing people into RFC compliance
> > like this.
>
> The compliance with the RFC isn't something we're forcing on
> people, it's something the server needs to do in its generation
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:42:56 -0500
"Joshua Slive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> In fact, this configuration looks terribly invalid. It should be
> RedirectMatch /build/tomcat/(.*)
> http://jakarta.apache.org/build.jakarta-tomcat/$1
> Or even better
> Redirect /build/tomcat/ http://jakarta.a
Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> I don't think we should be forcing people into RFC compliance
> like this.
The compliance with the RFC isn't something we're forcing on
people, it's something the server needs to do in its generation
of Location fields.
> so I'm -0.9 on it we should be opening the bag of
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>>The fix you just put in will probably break a lot of configurations
>>
>
> They were broken as it stands; the documentation says 'must be
> a valid URI'.
>
yep.. but thats true, and it isnt RFC compliant, and no one should be
using it in
Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> The fix you just put in will probably break a lot of configurations
They were broken as it stands; the documentation says 'must be
a valid URI'.
> is it possible to prefix the r->hostname to the relative URI instead?
Then you get into that whole UseCanonicalName bag of c
From: "Rodent of Unusual Size" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 12:10 PM
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> >
> > Yar; Redirect* should hork on invalid substitutions,
> > just as you say. I'll look at that one.
>
> The culprit appears to be RedirectMatch, even back in 1.3.
From: "Rodent of Unusual Size" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 11:39 AM
> Greg Ames wrote:
> >
> > /builds/tomcat/ is redirected to /builds/jakarta-tomcat/ via an
> > .htaccess file, so the bottom two refer to the same thing.
>
> This actually exposes a new issue: invalid
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>>Yar; Redirect* should hork on invalid substitutions,
>>just as you say. I'll look at that one.
>>
>
> The culprit appears to be RedirectMatch, even back in 1.3.
>
> No, I don't think this stops a roll by any means -- but it
> *d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> coar02/01/31 07:46:19
>
> Modified:.STATUS
> Log:
> Another showstopper.. protocol violation, this time.
>
> Revision ChangesPath
> 1.412 +4 -1 httpd-2.0/STATUS
>
> Index: STATUS
>
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> Yar; Redirect* should hork on invalid substitutions,
> just as you say. I'll look at that one.
The culprit appears to be RedirectMatch, even back in 1.3.
No, I don't think this stops a roll by any means -- but it
*does* stop it from being GA.
--
#kenP-)}
Is this a showstopper for a .31 roll ?
IMHO it shouldn't be
as the big browsers happily accept relative URL locations.
so while not RFC compliant it's not going to be crashing things
or stopping people from serving pages.
Joshua Slive wrote:
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Rodent of Unusual
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> You are confusing RedirectMatch with RewriteRule.
D'OH! (manipulative member dents anteriour cranium)
> In fact, this configuration looks terribly invalid.
Yar; Redirect* should hork on invalid substitutions,
just as you say. I'll look at that one.
--
#kenP-)}
K
> -Original Message-
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> RedirectMatch /builds/tomcat/(.*) /builds/jakarta-tomcat/$1
>
> Since there's no '[R]' flag, I'm not sure why this is forcing
> an external redirect, either, rather than keeping it internal
> and concealed
Greg Ames wrote:
>
> /builds/tomcat/ is redirected to /builds/jakarta-tomcat/ via an
> .htaccess file, so the bottom two refer to the same thing.
This actually exposes a new issue: invalid redirect fields.
GET /builds/tomcat/ HTTP/1.0
Host: jakarta.apache.org
returns
Location: /build
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> From: "Jeff Trawick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 6:36 AM
>
>
>>Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>>the plan is to roll within 48 hours if nothing major breaks (which
>>>can't be fixed in the tag)
>>>
>>It looks like I need to
Does *anything* "run" on Windows XP?? :)
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> There's a FAQ I'm getting more and more to which I don't
> know the answer; to wit, does Apache 1.3.* run on Windows XP?
> What *is* the answer?
> --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/
Frier Tuck and Robin Hood maybe?
rsbx
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> 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 e
From: "Jeff Trawick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 6:36 AM
> Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > the plan is to roll within 48 hours if nothing major breaks (which
> > can't be fixed in the tag)
>
> It looks like I need to veto/back-out Martin's change to getnam
"Roy T. Fielding" wrote:
> 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
Someone posted a note several months ago that not all add-in modules 'do
the right thing'. The coldfusion module was specifically mentioned. I
am someone, not related to MacroMedia in any form, who is keenly
interested in getting the coldfusion module to work 'the right way' with
Apache 2.0.
Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've tagged 31.
>
> the plan is to roll within 48 hours if nothing major breaks (which
> can't be fixed in the tag)
It looks like I need to veto/back-out Martin's change to getnameinfo()
error reporting down in APR since he apparently didn't have time t
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 08:43:02PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> 2. Why aren't the 1.3.22 tarballs available somewhere in the
>dist tree? Jim?
I re-addded at least 1.3.22.tar.gz from my copy. Does anyone else have
the .Z files?
And: who deleted them in the first place?
Marti
Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
>
>
>
There's a FAQ I'm getting more and more to which I don't
know the answer; to wit, does Apache 1.3.* run on Windows XP?
What *is* the answer?
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millenium hand and
84 matches
Mail list logo
