On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> If you and Cliff know that's a stable patch, safe for inclusion this
> time around, and helpful to implementors [because you promise
> not to break the API just as soon as you've first implemented it ;-]
> then I'd love to see that committed in t
Marc Slemko wrote:
> Isn't this a matter of IE incorrectly implementing the spec?
I'm not sure that this is the "famous" incompatibility between IE and
Apache. But I'm not sure it isn't, too. In any case, something in the
current code looks strange, and doesn't make sense. Are you sure that
the
At 01:54 AM 3/26/2002, you wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>If you feel it will -improve- stability [nothing else, just stability]
>>then we can
>>roll it in even after the tag.
>>
>>If you feel it needs a bit of 'incubation' - perhaps it should sit in
>>developer's
>>trees for a week or
Quick Summary of Problem Reports - this was handmade - would a few folks take
TEN MINUTES of your very busy day tommorow to squish 10 reports that you
know to be fixed :-? We could have this down to the twenty real reports in
no time.
PR# CATEGORY SYNOPSIS 2.0.28
7492 build config for IPv6-enab
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
> I'm in favor of including the new bucket allocator API
> in .34, in order to stabilize the API for 3rd party module
> maintainers.
>
> The *implementation* of the bucket free lists, though,
> will need a couple more weeks of development and testing.
> So i
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> If you feel it will -improve- stability [nothing else, just stability]
> then we can roll it in even after the tag.
The API change is meant to improve performance, not stability. The
buckets code is stable as it is.
> If you feel it needs a bi
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> If you feel it will -improve- stability [nothing else, just stability]
> then we can
> roll it in even after the tag.
>
> If you feel it needs a bit of 'incubation' - perhaps it should sit in
> developer's
> trees for a week or two and go out in .35.
I'm in favor
If you feel it will -improve- stability [nothing else, just stability] then
we can
roll it in even after the tag.
If you feel it needs a bit of 'incubation' - perhaps it should sit in
developer's
trees for a week or two and go out in .35.
Is that a fair approach?
Bill
At 12:49 AM 3/26/2002,
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> * 34 status: Let's get all API changes and showstoppers in this one.
> Please.
Brian and I have the bucket API change almost ready. We were planning on
posting it on the list in a day or two and committing by Thursday or
Fr
The list has been very quiet for a week or two now. A few notable
bugs are hanging around, but we [on the Win32 platform] pulled
the last beta due to very serious installation problems and more
importantly the .bat file vulnerability.
This is what I see open;
CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
* 34 st
Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Eli Marmor wrote:
>
>
>>And a yet another note:
>>
>>It is not a bug that "sometime" causes problems;
>>It is a bug that causes mod_auth_digest to fail ALWAYS (when there are
>>parameters, of course).
>
>
> That is defined as "sometimes". And it is on
Now I'm really confused ;-)
I think that POST is a different (though in many ways parallel) issue than
PATH_INFO. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I remember a discussion of this at some point, but I can't remember the
outcome.
Joshua.
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I tho
I thought this had been documented when I added the code.
AcceptPathInfo on|off|default [core directive - defaults to, 'default']
AcceptPathInfo 'on' in any context will allow additional path info in
all requests to that context [e.g. , , etc.]
AcceptPathInfo 'default' disallows additional pat
Don't know to what extent these changes affect mod_ssl for 2.0 (haven't
had time to look yet), but I figured I'd go ahead and forward them here
just in case.
--Cliff
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:01:35 +
From: Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMA
Can someone remind me how 2.0 is supposed to handle determining which
resources accept POSTs? Can you post to the default-handler (to give
input filters a crack at it)?
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:19:46 +0100
From: "Roozemond, D.A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Eli Marmor wrote:
> And a yet another note:
>
> It is not a bug that "sometime" causes problems;
> It is a bug that causes mod_auth_digest to fail ALWAYS (when there are
> parameters, of course).
That is defined as "sometimes". And it is only IE with which it fails,
no?
>
Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>
>
>>HEAD /toto/ HTTP/1.0
>>Host: vtxrm2
>>
>>HTTP/1.1 501 Method Not Implemented
>
>
>
> This was actually an unrelated bug... it's fixed now.
Thanks!
>
> --
Joshua Slive wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Nicolae Mihalache wrote:
>
>>Any ideea why this one does not show the variables? Is mod_cgi
>>restrictive about the variables it exports to cgi scripts?
>
>
> If you are running suexec, then the environment is cleaned using a
> compile-time "safe list"
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Nicolae Mihalache wrote:
>
> Any ideea why this one does not show the variables? Is mod_cgi
> restrictive about the variables it exports to cgi scripts?
If you are running suexec, then the environment is cleaned using a
compile-time "safe list".
Joshua.
Ian Holsman wrote:
> Nicolae Mihalache wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> First of all, this is my first attempt to modify an Apache module.
>> I'm tring to modify mod_mysql_auth to set some environment variables
>> that will be used by the CGI scripts and also by the mod_autoindex
>> (wich I will also mod
Hi!
First of all, this is my first attempt to modify an Apache module.
I'm tring to modify mod_mysql_auth to set some environment variables
that will be used by the CGI scripts and also by the mod_autoindex
(wich I will also modify) to change the output based on the priviledge
of the authent
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
> Sent: 25 March 2002 14:05
> "Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 22 March 2002 21:37
> >
> > > trawick 02/03/22 12:37:04
> > >
>
"Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 22 March 2002 21:37
>
> > trawick 02/03/22 12:37:04
> >
> > Modified:modules/http http_protocol.c
> > Log:
> > add an extra level of parentheses to say "yes I know what I'
IIRC, this is fixed in 1.3.24.
>
> Looking at the change log, they mention a bug that multiple set-cookie's
> will fail (only the last one will be sent to the client, the proxy will
> "eat" the others). And it was true... The problem is that 1.3.24 final
> also has that bug: only the last set-co
Stas Bekman wrote:
> Pedro Melo Cunha sent this patch to the modperl list, it probably
> belongs here.
The bug he is referring to is fixed in v1.3.24 - or at least works in my
version. Will check again to see if it is actually fixed.
Regards,
Graham
--
-
> From: Thom May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 March 2002 18:54
> To: HTTPD Dev List
> Subject: [PATCH] ensure all directories are created before installing to
> them.
>
>
> Reposting with a sane title. I really ought to work out how to write in
> English post 8pm.
> -Thom
>
> * Thom Ma
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 March 2002 21:37
> trawick 02/03/22 12:37:04
>
> Modified:modules/http http_protocol.c
> Log:
> add an extra level of parentheses to say "yes I know what I'm
> doing with that single '='" and more importantly to quie
27 matches
Mail list logo
