I already mentioned this on pmc@, but for the record, I've tested it with
Solaris 2.7 (sparc), and it's running smoothly. +1.
--Cliff
--
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlottesville, VA
"Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tarball tested on RH Linux 2.2.16-22 with no problems. +1
Tarball tested on AIX 4.3.3 and Solaris 8 (x86) with no problems. +1
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Tarball tested on RH Linux 2.2.16-22 with no problems. +1
Tested on Slackware Linuc 2.4.4 with no problems also.
--
Pilgrim, how you journey on the road you chose
To find out where the winds die and where the stories go
--Pilgrim (Enya - A Day Wi
Start Apache (worker MPM or prefork MPM), then send it sigusr1... here
is what happens to mod_cgid:
accept(11, 0xbb34, [110]) = ? ERESTARTSYS (To be restarted)
--- SIGHUP (Hangup) ---
Now send sighup to Apache... here is what happens to mod_cgid:
accept(11, 0xbb34, [110])
Tarball tested on RH Linux 2.2.16-22 with no problems. +1
Roy
Apache 1.3.24 checks out OK on TPF.
David McCreedy
Jim Jagielski
It *should*
Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
>
> Does the ./configure --enable-shared=foo syntax actually work, or am I
> just being a retard?
>
> Thanks,
> Cliff
>
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http:
Does the ./configure --enable-shared=foo syntax actually work, or am I
just being a retard?
Thanks,
Cliff
>From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Win32 Apache 1.3.24 httpd binaries available for testing
>Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:18:31 -0600
>
>The Win32 installers with signatures are available for testing from
>the following location;
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
> Sent: 21 March 2002 21:20
> What am I missing here? Why shouldn't the mod_ssl version just be the
> Apache version since with Apache 2.0 mod_ssl is now a core module?
+1
Sander
On 21 Mar 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> What am I missing here? Why shouldn't the mod_ssl version just be the
> Apache version since with Apache 2.0 mod_ssl is now a core module?
+1
--
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlottes
What am I missing here? Why shouldn't the mod_ssl version just be the
Apache version since with Apache 2.0 mod_ssl is now a core module?
(I haven't test-compiled this, but I'm happy to make sure it works if
this is the right thing.)
Index: mod_ssl.h
=
Hi,
currently the Makefile in support/ tests for the presence of $bindir and
then installs into $sbindir. This is a patch to fix this.
Cheers,
-Thom
Index: support/Makefile.in
===
RCS file: /home/cvspublic/httpd-2.0/support/Makefile
I'd like to release this Saturday... This implies moving the tarballs
tomorrow. The quickened schedule is for obvious reasons :)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A socie
Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is ap_queue_interrupt_all() used anywhere externally anymore? Let's
> just get rid of it in lieu of ap_queue_term().
That one is still used by worker MPM on the non-graceful shutdown
path.
On my first attempt to get this working I had a parameter to
a
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 07:12:54PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> trawick 02/03/21 11:12:54
>
> Modified:.CHANGES
>server/mpm/worker fdqueue.c fdqueue.h worker.c
> Log:
> Don't drop connections during graceful restart. Previously, worker
> threads could
... are available on http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will l
Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>what about moving the tag?
>
>
> AIUI that's verboten under 1.3's release model.
ah, ok, just saw the vulnerability report. no questions than. :)
_
Stas Be
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> what about moving the tag?
AIUI that's verboten under 1.3's release model.
--Cliff
--
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlottesville, VA
On 21 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> + This version of Apache is principally a security and bug fix release.
> + A summary of the bug fixes and major new features is given at the end
> + of this document. Of particular note is that 1.3.24 addresses and
> + fixes the issues n
Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>Before releasing 1.3.24, can we please resolve the issue with
>>-D_GNU_SOURCE,
>
>
> Sorry, too late... Jim tagged it about an hour ago.
what about moving the tag?
in any case how hard is to solve the problem I've posted?
I
It's out.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:06:46 -0800
From: Ory Segal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[E
NP. Sorry for the bother.
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 11:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> CHANGES is your friend :)
>
> Austin Gonyou wrote:
> >
> > Just FMI,
> > If I'm on 1.3.23 now, would it behove me to go to this release for
> any
> > major reasons?
> >
> > On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 08:52, Jim Jagiel
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Before releasing 1.3.24, can we please resolve the issue with
> -D_GNU_SOURCE,
Sorry, too late... Jim tagged it about an hour ago.
--Cliff
--
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlott
Implements the ForceLanguagePriority directive from 2.0.32 in 1.3.23
ftp://ftp.nettonettech.com/download/mod_negotiation.patch
-
--- mod_negotiation-old.cThu Mar 21 12:30:16 2002
+++ mod_negotiation.cThu Mar 21 12:32:39
Before releasing 1.3.24, can we please resolve the issue with
-D_GNU_SOURCE, before people start complaining that they cannot build
mod_perl-1.x with apache-1.3 and perl 5.8.0? The earlier this thing
gets fixed the less bug reports we will get.
Thanks!
>>I'm looking to tag-and-roll 1.3.24 wi
CHANGES is your friend :)
Austin Gonyou wrote:
>
> Just FMI,
> If I'm on 1.3.23 now, would it behove me to go to this release for any
> major reasons?
>
> On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 08:52, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > I'm looking to tag-and-roll 1.3.24 within the hour (11am Eastern)...
> >
> > --
>
Just FMI,
If I'm on 1.3.23 now, would it behove me to go to this release for any
major reasons?
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 08:52, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'm looking to tag-and-roll 1.3.24 within the hour (11am Eastern)...
>
> --
> ==
At 08:49 AM 3/21/2002, you wrote:
>Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > Perhaps I missed something here, but isn't this exactly what the
> > UseCanonicalName directive is for? Why are you hard-coding this?
>
>Hmmm - got me there - wasn't aware that the UseCanonicalName did this.
>Will change it back :)
Ple
I'm looking to tag-and-roll 1.3.24 within the hour (11am Eastern)...
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
Joshua Slive wrote:
> Perhaps I missed something here, but isn't this exactly what the
> UseCanonicalName directive is for? Why are you hard-coding this?
Hmmm - got me there - wasn't aware that the UseCanonicalName did this.
Will change it back :)
Regards,
Graham
--
--
Certainly, isn't this better addressed by UseCanonicalName? We
depend on ap_get_server_name() to do the "right thing" depending
on that setting... This doesn't seem right to me.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> minfrin 02/03/21 06:37:43
>
> Modified:src CHANGES
>src/m
On 21 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> minfrin 02/03/21 06:37:43
>
> Modified:src CHANGES
>src/main http_core.c
> Log:
> Change ap_construct_url() so that the r->hostname is used in
> the URL instead of the value of the ServerName directive. This
> stops
Hi all,
When I access www.hotmail.com using Netscape v4.7 (an HTTP/1.0 client),
and try to use the "block" feature in the Hotmail service, I get
Netscape complain that it received a message it did not understand:
"100!". A trace shows that Hotmail is sending a 100 Continue response -
but I cannot
34 matches
Mail list logo
