GNATS (bugs.apache.org), in short, sucks (that's an understatement).
All I want is a usable web interface to manage our bugs. I have
spent way too much time over the last few weeks fighting this
horrible bug system and trying to clean up the entries.
So, who among those who would go through the
"Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GNATS (bugs.apache.org), in short, sucks (that's an understatement).
> All I want is a usable web interface to manage our bugs. I have
> spent way too much time over the last few weeks fighting this
> horrible bug system and trying to clean up the
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> I'm all +1 on that, I mean, Buzilla sucks but it's better than GNATS, and
> regarding security, the whole kit is run in a chrooted environment on a
> machine not hosting any critical server (plus it's backed up and yada yada
> yada...)...
>
> Adding H
"Cliff Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
>> I'm all +1 on that, I mean, Buzilla sucks but it's better than GNATS, and
>> regarding security, the whole kit is run in a chrooted environment on a
>> machine not hosting any critical server (plus it's
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
> According to Justin Erenkrantz:
>
> > -0. I personally believe that this shouldn't be backported. If
> > you want this, you should use 2.0.
>
> I tend to agree. -0 from me as well.
>
> There will always be a nice feature which could be backported
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> So, who among those who would go through the bugs would veto the use
> of bugzilla? It may be crap, but I believe less so than GNATS. Pier
> already has bugzilla setup on nagoya, so it should be fairly trivial
> to add an httpd-2.0 project.
Havin
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Rich Bowen wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > So, who among those who would go through the bugs would veto the use
> > of bugzilla? It may be crap, but I believe less so than GNATS. Pier
> > already has bugzilla setup on nagoya, so it should be fai
"Rich Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>
>>> So, who among those who would go through the bugs would veto the use
>>> of bugzilla? It may be crap, but I believe less so than GNATS. Pier
>>> already h
At 05:05 AM 2/26/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
>
> > According to Justin Erenkrantz:
> >
> > > -0. I personally believe that this shouldn't be backported. If
> > > you want this, you should use 2.0.
> >
> > I tend to agree. -0 from me as well.
> >
I agree with Dirk-Willem. I'm much less sympathetic to the "it's time
to move on" arguments these days. I think we have given 2.0 plenty of
headroom. 1.3 won't die out for a very long time and we can be nice
about that. Of course 2.0 should get the vast majority of our calories.
1.3 is very
I want to try running Apache 2.0.32 with the auth_ldap module. The
online manual (manual/dso.html) says to run configure with
--add-module=module_type:/path/to/3rdparty/mod_foo.c
Unfortunately, configure doesn't like --add-module. Since the
documentation is wrong and/or out of data, how can
The config.nice file that I used for compiling Apache to include
LDAP based on the latest OpenLDAP is as follows:
#! /bin/sh
#
# Created by configure
"./configure" \
"--with-mpm=prefork" \
"--enable-maintainer-mode" \
"--disable-cgid" \
"--enable-cgi" \
"--with-ldap-include=/usr/local/include/"
Was this fixed in 2.0.32?
This was a key reason for my mod_dir patch that broke Brian's request, below.
This is also a mod_negotiation bug, we simply hadn't realized it yet.
From: "Brian Akins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 7:35 AM
> I've
I don't know why, but right now my server started complaining with:
[warn] (128)Network is unreachable: connect to listener
I just issued a "restart" and before it was working fine... Now, even if I
shut it down and start it back again, the error_log is full with those...
I believe it comes out
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 05:26:44PM -0500, Michael Handler wrote:
> hi, guys. i've posted this patch for foreground/supervise support
FWIW, by just eyeballing this patch I can say it looks good. It is
exactly how I would have done it.
-aaron
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> I don't care how de-stabilized the code base becomes.
That's a very alarming thing to read.
Making perchild work is one thing. Warping, or even just tweaking,
common code in order to make perchild work is something else
again.
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedw
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >
> > I don't care how de-stabilized the code base becomes.
>
> That's a very alarming thing to read.
>
> Making perchild work is one thing. Warping, or even just tweaking,
> common code in order to make perchild work is something else
> again.
If you read the statement
Folks, the current proxy code looks unreleasable and a bit sloppy in
apache-1.3 HEAD
with a few abandoned variables and an undeclared fn.
Would one of the proxy hackers take a look at these?
src\modules\proxy\proxy_cache.c(886) : warning C4013:
'ap_proxy_table_unmerge' undefined; assuming extern
* Tim Moloney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> I want to try running Apache 2.0.32 with the auth_ldap module. The
> online manual (manual/dso.html) says to run configure with
>
> --add-module=module_type:/path/to/3rdparty/mod_foo.c
>
> Unfortunately, configure doesn't like --add-module. Since t
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
| If you read the statement in context, it shouldn't be alarming. It was
| in response to a statement that we shouldn't be re-writing any code,
| because it destabilizes the current code. I patently disagree with that
| statement.
|
| I also disagree that
* Justin Erenkrantz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> GNATS (bugs.apache.org), in short, sucks (that's an understatement).
> All I want is a usable web interface to manage our bugs. I have
> spent way too much time over the last few weeks fighting this
> horrible bug system and trying to clean up the
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> GNATS (bugs.apache.org), in short, sucks (that's an understatement).
> All I want is a usable web interface to manage our bugs. I have
> spent way too much time over the last few weeks fighting this
> horrible bug system and trying to clean up the
* Marc Slemko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > GNATS (bugs.apache.org), in short, sucks (that's an understatement).
> > All I want is a usable web interface to manage our bugs. I have
> > spent way too much time over the last few weeks fighting th
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 08:30:03AM -0800, Marc Slemko wrote:
> We went through this whole exercise before, but it was dropped for two
> One major problem is that how it is (was?) setup, it is impossible
> to get automated email notifications of changes to all bugs, ie. like
> the apache-bugdb mail
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> I also disagree that just tweaking common code should be a problem.
> Perhaps most importantly though, I don't think the changes for perchild
> will extend beyond the MPM.
That's cool, then. However, it *does* seem that recently (last
few months) there tends to be a lot of
"Marc Slemko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We went through this whole exercise before, but it was dropped for two
> main reasons: security nightmare and lack of effort giving to
> replicating gnats features that many people have become used to and
> really like, in the bugzilla environment.
For
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
| Unlike others here, I'm not emotionally invested in getting 2.0
| out "soon". If it takes a few more months for it to be Ready,
| that's fine with me. I think there are some interested parties
| that would rather have it released sooner than
Title: problems debugging on Linux platform
I cannot be able to debug modules under Linux, since when I should get into the new module, I get a reference to eval.c, line 88... it's driving me mad! I running Apache 1.3.23 on Linux 2.4 and the module is compiled as a DSO and I'm using gdb 5.
Since this is not exactly a user support question, I will answer
it here but ask that you subscribe to the apache module authors
mailing list for any followup or future questions (send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to subscribe). This very topic
was discussed there a couple weeks ago, and I've at
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Belen Leonardo Javier wrote:
> I cannot be able to debug modules under Linux, since when I should get into
> the new module, I get a reference to eval.c, line 88... it's driving me
> mad! I running Apache 1.3.23 on Linux 2.4 and the module is compiled as
> a DSO and I'm u
> I cannot be able to debug modules under Linux, since when I should get into
> the new module, I get a reference to eval.c, line 88... it's driving me
> mad! I running Apache 1.3.23 on Linux 2.4 and the module is compiled as a
> DSO and I'm using gdb 5.0 as debugger.
Do you set optimization
Dale Ghent wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>| Unlike others here, I'm not emotionally invested in getting 2.0
>| out "soon". If it takes a few more months for it to be Ready,
>| that's fine with me. I think there are some interested parties
>| that would rather have
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 11:13 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Folks, the current proxy code looks unreleasable and a bit sloppy in
> apache-1.3 HEAD
> with a few abandoned variables and an undeclared fn.
>
> Would one of the proxy hackers take a look at these?
>
Done.
Chuck
So, Scarab's finally ready for people to start looking at it.
http://scarab.tigris.org/. It's got a pretty active developer community
around it now. There is a prototype bugzilla -> scarab converter but
there are issues with bugzilla's XML export that are being worked out.
Not GNATS -> scarab y
+1 for investigating Scarab!
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Behlendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Use of Bugzilla?
>
> So, Scarab's finally ready for people to start looking at it.
> http://scarab.tigris.
"Brian Behlendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, Scarab's finally ready for people to start looking at it.
> http://scarab.tigris.org/. It's got a pretty active developer community
> around it now. There is a prototype bugzilla -> scarab converter but
> there are issues with bugzilla's XM
Thom May wrote:
> Tim Moloney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
>
>>I want to try running Apache 2.0.32 with the auth_ldap module. The
>>online manual (manual/dso.html) says to run configure with
>>
>> --add-module=module_type:/path/to/3rdparty/mod_foo.c
>>
>>Unfortunately, configure doesn't like --
A quick fix I found was to do
--- mod_dir.bak Tue Feb 26 14:27:00 2002
+++ mod_dir.c Tue Feb 26 14:27:55 2002
@@ -201,6 +201,7 @@
/* XXX: (filetype == APR_REG) - we can't use a non-file index??? */
if (rr->status == HTTP_OK && rr->finfo.filetype == APR_REG) {
ap_i
There's a little catch-22 that we're running into in trying to
get --enable-layout to work. I have a patch that seems to fix
--enable-layout again, but there is a potential problem:
If one specifies --enable-layout=foo then that layout profile
will completely override other settings like --prefix.
hi
i'm just another user of apache server, and i here not to ask for support or
anything like that, i'm here to request/suggest feature for new apache
c# /usr/local/apache/bin/rotatelogs
Usage: /usr/local/apache/bin/rotatelogs
[offset minutes from UTC]
Add this:
TransferLog "|/usr/local/apac
On Tue, 2002-02-26 at 11:26, Dale Ghent wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> | If you read the statement in context, it shouldn't be alarming. It was
> | in response to a statement that we shouldn't be re-writing any code,
> | because it destabilizes the current code. I patently
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> aaron 02/02/26 10:41:58
>
> Modified:.config.layout
> Log:
> These variables need to be delimited with {} or they will conflict with
> other variables in the same namespace with a shorter prefix substring.
> How did this ever work before? I
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 03:49:03PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Beware, there is something not quite right somewhere...
>
> See how exec_prefix hasn't been expanded in the invocation below.
>
> /bin/sh /usr/home/trawick/regress/httpd-2.0/shlibtool --mode=link gcc
> -g -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-protot
> Now, in response to the above two comments (and their derivatives),
yes,
> Apache is free. So is Linux, so is Mysql, so is PHP, so is Perl.
> However, all of the above products (yes, I do use the term PRODUCT
> specifically here) focus the development team towards RELEASING a
> tangible product
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > MAJOR code change to a large part of the code (Ryan, if you did not,
> > then my apologies on naming you. IE the per-child MPM stuff).
> The scariest thing about this conversation is that it was sparked by a
> commit that added two comments. Even worse
> As far as having no responsibility to the people/companies that USE
> Apache, I put forth this argument. When a company bases it's business
> or a person bases their career on a program, in MY OPINION, there then
> springs into a being an implied responsibility on the development team
> to supp
Title: RE: problems debugging on Linux platform
Yes, I did, but for some reason the httpd -X (for a single process) is not working, since I cannot get into the module, and it seems to all be running in other thread, what is more, the target is actually linuxthread...
-Mensaje original---
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 11:47:42AM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> Are we content with --enable-layout potentially overwriting all
> --prefix -like parameters?
I'm not. I think any argument specified on the command-line (such
as --prefix) should override the specified layout. It worked like
this
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 02:28:38PM -0500, Brian Akins wrote:
> A quick fix I found was to do
>
> --- mod_dir.bak Tue Feb 26 14:27:00 2002
> +++ mod_dir.c Tue Feb 26 14:27:55 2002
> @@ -201,6 +201,7 @@
> /* XXX: (filetype == APR_REG) - we can't use a non-file index??? */
> if (
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 03:52:32PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 11:47:42AM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > Are we content with --enable-layout potentially overwriting all
> > --prefix -like parameters?
>
> I'm not. I think any argument specified on the command-line (
* Aaron Bannert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 03:52:32PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 11:47:42AM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > > Are we content with --enable-layout potentially overwriting all
> > > --prefix -like parameters?
> >
> > I'm no
On 27 Feb 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>/* determine whether newline should be written */
>if (add & SSL_NO_NEWLINE)
> -nstr[0] = NUL;
> +nstr = NUL;
How can that be right?
mod_ssl.h:#define NUL '\0'
So now nstr is a null pointer rather than an empty strin
Sorry, my bad. I shouldn't be in such a hurry. I'll fix it right this
time.
Ryan
--
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
645 Howard St. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
San Francisco, CA
> -Original Message-
> From: Cliff Woolley [ma
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> ... It is completely insane to think that a volunteer group
> of developers is going to be responsible to all 60 million or so users just
> because they happen to like the free product.
hear hear
> If you aren't contributing, you aren't part of the Apache community.
I don't have BeOS so I can't verify this patch. Should be simple
enough to verify.
-aaron
Index: server/mpm/beos/beos.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/server/mpm/beos/beos.c,v
retrieving revision 1.85
diff -u -u -r1.85 beos.c
--
Jeff Stuart wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-02-26 at 11:26, Dale Ghent wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>
>>| If you read the statement in context, it shouldn't be alarming. It was
>>| in response to a statement that we shouldn't be re-writing any code,
>>| because it destabilizes the cu
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 07:21:16AM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 05:26:44PM -0500, Michael Handler wrote:
> > hi, guys. i've posted this patch for foreground/supervise support
>
> FWIW, by just eyeballing this patch I can say it looks good. It is
> exactly how I would have
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> ssl_rand_seed() runs on every request if you configure it that way.
this is true, when 'SSLRandomSeed connect builtin' is configured, which is
the default. not sure how much the scoreboard image changes between
requests. though somewhat related, i
I agree with Justin - the scoreboard data may not be random enough (and easy
to affect it).. What I've been trying to do something similar to Doug's
suggestion - have a thread in each process that acts as a random data
gatherer (that's what I believe zeus does), and I expect it to give better
perf
Joseph Wayne Norton wrote:
> In conjunction with mod_rewrite as url filter, I would like to be able
> to use mod_accel as a proxy for only the http request portion of a
> client request and allow for the http response portion to be served
> directly from the backend to the client. This would be
What is the proper config file directive to allow Perl CGI scripts to
run with Apache2.0? The sample config file contains a commented
#AddHandler cgi-script .cgi
But I can't get Apache to accept that directive. And the Perl scripts
are delivered raw to the browser.
BTW, if this is the wrong
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Graham Leggett wrote:
> > Is it possible to integrate apache 2.0's mod_cache with mod_accel
> > and/or add mod_accel's features to mod_proxy?
>
> Mod_proxy is no longer ancient nor hard to maintain, and as far as I am
> aware the new mod_proxy does almost everything mod_acce
Graham -
At Wed, 27 Feb 2002 06:36:45 +0200,
Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> [1 ]
> Joseph Wayne Norton wrote:
>
> > In conjunction with mod_rewrite as url filter, I would like to be able
> > to use mod_accel as a proxy for only the http request portion of a
> > client request and allow for the htt
63 matches
Mail list logo
