According to Ryan Bloom:
Mod_ldap was in 2.0, but the group decided to remove it. The docs
should be removed as well. Instead of losing the code and docs, a
new httpd sub-project was created, and the docs should be moved
there, the code has been there for a while already.
The sub-project
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Greg Ames [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a very error prone part of our process. I got around it in 2_0_28 by
sending preliminary tarballs to people on platforms I knew were problematic,
before making anything public. Madhu told me my first tarball built with
Bill Stoddard wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:45:56PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
httpd-2.0.31 does not build on NetWare because of a screwed up #ifdef
APR_HAS_SHARED_MEMORY in scoreboard.c/ap_reopen_scoreboard(). The fix
for this has already been checked in but I'm not going to
I'd like for us to consider releasing 1.3.24 specifically for the Solaris
pthread fix. I offer to be RM. I'll update STATUS for voting and comments.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|]
Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the NW patch is in there.
the non-crap tarballs are in the /dist directory.
+1 for FreeBSD 3.4...
I unpacked it, did binbuild, did the binbuild installation, and
hammered* it over local LAN with 200,000 requests (mix of CGI, / to
drive lots of wrowe
Jim Jagielski wrote:
So I re-rolled on daedalus for most
platforms, and on Linux w/autoconf 1.4.2 for Darwin.
I think Greg mean libtool 1.4.2.
AIX definitely needs libtool 1.4.2.
I thought libtool 1.4.2 did *not* work for Darwin/OS X 10.1.x... I can
check here. (the
Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm still struggling with the tarball on AIX. I think it is just a
matter of cleaning up libtool 1.3 droplets so that a fresh buildconf
does what it is supposed to do.
That and, for me, working around the fact that somebody installed an
expat RPM on
From: Ben Hyde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 9:20 PM
Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 05:34:51PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
...
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2_0_31-alpha.tar.gz
Why can't we name our damned tarballs and resulting
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 11:03 AM
From: Ben Hyde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 9:20 PM
Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 05:34:51PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
...
Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm still struggling with the tarball on AIX. I think it is just a
matter of cleaning up libtool 1.3 droplets so that a fresh buildconf
does what it is supposed to do.
That and, for me, working around the
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd like for us to consider releasing 1.3.24 specifically for the Solaris
pthread fix. I offer to be RM. I'll update STATUS for voting and comments.
+1 from me :(
By the way... would a shell expert such as yourself know how to catch
a bad exit from
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd like for us to consider releasing 1.3.24 specifically for the Solaris
pthread fix. I offer to be RM. I'll update STATUS for voting and comments.
+1 from me :(
+1
Bill
According to Ryan Bloom:
Mod_ldap was in 2.0, but the group decided to remove it. The docs
should be removed as well. Instead of losing the code and docs, a
new httpd sub-project was created, and the docs should be moved
there, the code has been there for a while already.
The
Bill Stoddard wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:45:56PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
httpd-2.0.31 does not build on NetWare because of a screwed up
#ifdef
APR_HAS_SHARED_MEMORY in scoreboard.c/ap_reopen_scoreboard().
The
fix
for this has already been checked in but I'm not
RM postscript: the tarball is also missing docs/manual/faq/support.html
for whatever reason.
From: Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 5:54 PM
So what is the verdict on the messed up #ifdef in scoreboard.c if .31
goes beta? Are we going to include the fixed
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 12:42 PM
RM postscript: the tarball is also missing docs/manual/faq/support.html
for whatever reason.
Ok... I missed the new schema; this is not a problem.
It would be rather cool, however, to have and index.html
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
RM postscript: the tarball is also missing docs/manual/faq/support.html
for whatever reason.
The httpd_roll_release script actually downloads an SSI parsed copy of the faq,
so it can be served by sites without mod_include enabled. You should see all of
the info
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
| I'd like for us to consider releasing 1.3.24 specifically for the Solaris
| pthread fix. I offer to be RM. I'll update STATUS for voting and comments.
I don't know, I think it might be premature to do that.
I still think that it's a bad idea to
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Dale Ghent wrote:
| I still think that it's a bad idea to unconditionally include libpthread
| on Solaris builds in cases where HPSA is not enabled, which would be
| (relatively) rare situations because HPSA is not the default for Solaris.
Replying to my own email here.
I
Dale Ghent [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
| I'd like for us to consider releasing 1.3.24 specifically for the Solaris
| pthread fix. I offer to be RM. I'll update STATUS for voting and comments.
I don't know, I think it might be premature to do that.
Dale Ghent [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Dale Ghent wrote:
| I still think that it's a bad idea to unconditionally include libpthread
| on Solaris builds in cases where HPSA is not enabled, which would be
| (relatively) rare situations because HPSA is not the default for
On 2 Feb 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
| what the heck is HPSA?
|
| I thought you wanted pthread mutex to be the default on Solaris and
| not just a choice (like it is now)? Was that somebody else?
HPSA Is my way of saying HAVE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT without having to
type out that long dang
Dale Ghent wrote:
My issue with including libpthread on Solaris builds that do not use
HAVE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT is that, as stated by the Sun docs at the
URL I posted yesterday, that unnecessary overhead is introduced into the
proces as thread-related structures and environment is
Dale Ghent wrote:
Attached is a patch to add -DUSE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT to CFLAGS for
Solaris.
Not needed. The 1.3.23 code *as is* makes pthread the default for Solaris.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL
Dale Ghent [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My issue with including libpthread on Solaris builds that do not use
HAVE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT is that, as stated by the Sun docs at the
URL I posted yesterday, that unnecessary overhead is introduced into the
proces as thread-related structures and
Dale Ghent wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
| I'd like for us to consider releasing 1.3.24 specifically for the Solaris
| pthread fix. I offer to be RM. I'll update STATUS for voting and comments.
I don't know, I think it might be premature to do that.
I still think
Ryan Bloom wrote:
Once the tarball is rolled, that's it, move on to the next version.
+1 (for Apache 2)
I disagree, strongly. :-) In this case, the tarball was rolled, but it
was rolled incorrectly (my fault for not updating the how_to_release
site). The code was fine, but the
Bill Stoddard wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:45:56PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
httpd-2.0.31 does not build on NetWare because of a screwed up
#ifdef
APR_HAS_SHARED_MEMORY in scoreboard.c/ap_reopen_scoreboard().
The
fix
for this has already been checked in but
Jeff Trawick wrote:
By the way... would a shell expert such as yourself know how to catch
a bad exit from apache-1.3/src/Configure in the apache-1.3/configure
code below and make sure that configure exits with a bad status too?
if [ x$quiet = xyes ]; then
(cd $src; ./Configure
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Does *anything* run on Windows XP?? :)
Cygwin 1.3.x port of 1.3 at least *seems* to run on WinXP, but I
haven' tested long run processes here, so don't beat me for failures.
Stipe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:
+* 31 BETA STATUS:
+running on Daedalus since 02-Feb-2002 7:58 PST (need 3 days)
+Compiles on : AIX, Solaris, FreeBSD 3.5, Win32
FreeBSD 3.4 on my box, FreeBSD 4.5 on daedalus
+problems with v31:
+
Any reason we can't have both?
If some admins want to keep orphaned children around, that's cool.
If others want their children to die right away, for instance if
they are using a process monitoring tool, then that's fine too.
-aaron
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 09:17:05PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Trawick wrote:
By the way... would a shell expert such as yourself know how
to catch a bad exit from apache-1.3/src/Configure in the
apache-1.3/configure code below and make sure that configure
exits with a bad status too?
if [ x$quiet = xyes ]; then
(cd $src; ./Configure
I have this and the same thing for htdbm in my tree, but I'm
holding off committing since I was going to replace the whole
thing with a --enable-static-support-binaries (or some better name
if I can think of it).
I'm also planning on changing the binbuild script to call out
this parameter.
Ryan Bloom wrote:
Once the tarball is rolled, that's it, move on to the next
version.
+1 (for Apache 2)
I disagree, strongly. :-) In this case, the tarball was rolled,
but it
was rolled incorrectly (my fault for not updating the how_to_release
site). The code was fine,
From: Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 4:36 PM
From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
My point is that I disagree with that. We have been bumping tags on
files when releasing 2.0 since 2.0.16, and we aren't even talking about
bumping a tag here.
I think this is the right thing, but I won't commit it myself without a
couple +1s, because I don't trust myself mucking with suexec. Someone
suggested making this conditional on mod_ssl being included in the build,
but I don't see the point. There doesn't seem to be any danger in allowing
SSL_
I just built from the latest tarball on Win2000. I included the latest
OpenSSL (0.9.6c). build to include mod-ssl. Everything built fine.
Now, when I access my site with Mozilla 0.9.6, and submit a form...
none of the form variables are present. Yesterday, I was running Apache
2_0_28 with
More info... my error log has the following entry each time I submit a
form from Mozilla...
[Sat Feb 02 18:28:17 2002] [error] [client 127.0.0.1] (32560)Connection
timed out: read_request_line() failed
Dwayne Miller wrote:
I just built from the latest tarball on Win2000. I included the
Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have this and the same thing for htdbm in my tree, but I'm
holding off committing since I was going to replace the whole
thing with a --enable-static-support-binaries (or some better name
if I can think of it).
I figured as much, but I went ahead
40 matches
Mail list logo
