Here's a patch (against the current CVS head) that addresses the two
problems I know about:
* The ctx->tag_length computation in find_end_sequence() was a bit
broken in cases where there was a "false alarm" match on a partial
"-->"
* The ap_ssi_get_tag_and_value() function needs to avo
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 09:36:31AM -0800, Joshua Slive wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Anyone think it is a good idea if I did a
> >
> > s/@/_at_/g
> >
> > on the email addresses in the Changes file ?
>
> -0
>
> - It won't solve the problem.
>
> - It looks amateuri
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/03/26 20:35:50 $]
Release:
2.0.34 : tagged March 26, 2002.
2.0.33 : tagged March 6, 2002. not released.
2.0.32 : released Feburary 16, 2002 as beta.
2.0.31 : rolled Febur
APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/03/21 17:13:03 $]
Release:
1.3.25-dev: In development
1.3.24: Tagged Mar 21, 2002.
1.3.23: Tagged Jan 21, 2002.
1.3.22: Tagged Oct 8, 2001. Announced Oct 12, 2001.
1.3.21: N
Brian,
Please give me a chance to fix this. I indicated that I was looking
at this problem. There is no reason to duplicate work. I have identified
several problems and am working on fixes for them. I should have something
tested and ready by the end of day on Thursday or Friday during the day
at
Brian Pane wrote:
> Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
>>
+if (ctx->curr_tag_pos - ctx->combined_tag > ctx->tag_length) {
+*tag = NULL;
+return;
+}
>>> My only objection to this is that ctx->curr_tag_pos is supposed
>>
Cliff Woolley wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
>
>>>+if (ctx->curr_tag_pos - ctx->combined_tag > ctx->tag_length) {
>>>+*tag = NULL;
>>>+return;
>>>+}
>>>
>>My only objection to this is that ctx->curr_tag_pos is supposed
>>to point to a null-terminated copy o
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Anyone think it is a good idea if I did a
>
> s/@/_at_/g
>
> on the email addresses in the Changes file ?
Won't help that much ... -0.
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht- All the simple programs have been
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - written,
Well that patch is against 1.3.24, so I'm not sure how it is fixed in
1.3.24.
I'm currently experiencing something similar with Zope 2.4.3 and ProxyPass.
Our user authentication (in Zope) is setting two cookies and under our
old apache version 1.3.6 (Stronghold 2.4.2), or using the internal
Medu
At 04:57 PM 3/27/2002, you wrote:
>Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >
> > So if a third-party is interested in examining the scoreboard, they
> > have to do it either via a module or attach to the shared-memory
> > segment?
> >
>
>Yep... For the record, we don't use any of this right now, and I doubt
>t
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:08:51PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > This patch removes, for good, the concept of *only* file-based scoreboards.
> > Not named-based and file-based shared memory scoreboards, but scoreboards
> > that exist only as files.
> >
> > In the p
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Greg Stein wrote:
> Maybe this could return a status, rather than just calling ssl_die()? (and
> have the caller do the die...)
>
> Personally, I'd rather see an eventual case where you bubble up the death,
> and let Apache core do the exiting, rather than having the module
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:55:36PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> jim 02/03/27 04:55:35
>
> Modified:modules/proxy CHANGES
> Log:
> Depreciate mod_proxy's own CHANGES file
We write software, not accounting manuals :-)
"deprecate"
>...
> +++ CHANGES 27 Mar 2002 12:55:35 -
On 27 Mar 2002, Raphael Amaury Jacquot wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-03-25 at 23:23, 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
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:50:51PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> So if a third-party is interested in examining the scoreboard, they
> have to do it either via a module or attach to the shared-memory
> segment?
>
> Sounds fair enough... -- justin
Nope, we don't lose that when we remove SCOR
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 09:07:08PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> +++ ssl_engine_init.c 27 Mar 2002 21:07:08 - 1.62
>...
> +static void ssl_init_verify(server_rec *s,
> +apr_pool_t *p,
> +apr_pool_t *ptemp,
>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 09:42:48AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 09:36:31AM -0800, Joshua Slive wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Anyone think it is a good idea if I did a
> > >
> > > s/@/_at_/g
> > >
> > > on the email addresses in the Cha
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 11:56:36AM -0800, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Joe Orton wrote:
>
> > This updates config.layout for recent Red Hat Linux systems (bugzilla
> > #7422):
>
> Any opinions on whether we should retain the old layout and name this one
> Redhat7 so that we don'
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:08:51PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> This patch removes, for good, the concept of *only* file-based scoreboards.
> Not named-based and file-based shared memory scoreboards, but scoreboards
> that exist only as files.
>
> In the process, this allows us to remove some de
Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I think this comment was based on a buglet in your code*, not on your
intention:
> Why would you disable IPv6 support everywhere based on your own bad
> experiences with one machine? (By the way... I have no problems with
> Apache/APR IPv6 on my Solaris
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:28:16AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> dougm 02/03/26 18:28:16
>
> Modified:modules/ssl mod_ssl.h
> Added: modules/ssl ssl_toolkit_compat.h
This header file needs a license at the top.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
On Mon, 2002-03-25 at 23:23, 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 defi
"Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 09:13:23PM +, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>> On my Solaris 8/x86 box, if I enable IPv6 support in APR, things start to
>> get weird (I believe it's my old tweaked version of Solaris, but...)...
>>
>> This little patch allows
Pier Fumagalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This little patch allows to change the default behavior and disables APR
> IPv6 support by adding a "--disable-ipv6" parameter when calling "configure"
> in the APR directory...
Why would you disable IPv6 support everywhere based on your own bad
exper
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 09:13:23PM +, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> On my Solaris 8/x86 box, if I enable IPv6 support in APR, things start to
> get weird (I believe it's my old tweaked version of Solaris, but...)...
>
> This little patch allows to change the default behavior and disables APR
> IPv6
Greg Ames wrote:
> The worker_score is 208 bytes now on my Linux box.
s/208/204/
Greg
Stas Bekman wrote:
> So there are two different issues here:
>
> 1. patching the scoreboard to collect and store this extra info
>
> 2. patching mod_status to use this extra info
true
> since mod_status in the extended mode is already doing a lot of work,
> how much of an extra overhead will
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
> >+if (ctx->curr_tag_pos - ctx->combined_tag > ctx->tag_length) {
> >+*tag = NULL;
> >+return;
> >+}
>
> My only objection to this is that ctx->curr_tag_pos is supposed
> to point to a null-terminated copy of the directive, and all t
Thanks for the tip, but i´ve already tried it, and didn´t work. If you have
any others ideas i apreciate.
Att,
Daniel Martins Abad
Analista de Suporte
Tel: 3365-0186
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#ICQ-64604947
Você tem o Webmail gratuito do Cidade Internet?
http://webmail.cidadeinternet.com.br
-M
Good idea.
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Joe Orton wrote:
>
> > This updates config.layout for recent Red Hat Linux systems (bugzilla
> > #7422):
>
> Any opinions on whether we should retain the old layout and name this one
> Redhat7 so that we don't break people upgrading ol
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Joe Orton wrote:
> This updates config.layout for recent Red Hat Linux systems (bugzilla
> #7422):
Any opinions on whether we should retain the old layout and name this one
Redhat7 so that we don't break people upgrading old installations?
Joshua.
This patch removes, for good, the concept of *only* file-based scoreboards.
Not named-based and file-based shared memory scoreboards, but scoreboards
that exist only as files.
In the process, this allows us to remove some dead and useless function
calls which may be optimized away anyway, but thi
Okay, I have recreated at least two problems in include processing, one
of which results in a core dump. I am in process of tracking them down.
It might be tomorrow before I have a patch.
Paul J. Reder
Paul J. Reder wrote:
> Brian,
>
> I'm looking into this right now. I'll let you all know wha
At 9:32 AM -0800 3/27/02, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > > > ... maybe it's time to depreciate this :)
>> > In what way: the #define or the file itself?
>> The concept itself (file-based scoreboards).
>
>Right now we default to an anonymous shared-memory scoreboard and have
>the option to create a file-
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 09:36:31AM -0800, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Anyone think it is a good idea if I did a
> >
> > s/@/_at_/g
> >
> > on the email addresses in the Changes file ?
>
> -0
>
> - It won't solve the problem.
>
> - It looks amate
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Anyone think it is a good idea if I did a
>
> s/@/_at_/g
>
> on the email addresses in the Changes file ?
-0
- It won't solve the problem.
- It looks amateurish
We participate in a public development process. There is no way to hide
our em
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Anyone think it is a good idea if I did a
>
> s/@/_at_/g
>
>on the email addresses in the Changes file ?
>
+1.
Maybe also "s/\./ DOT /g"
--Brian
> > > ... maybe it's time to depreciate this :)
> > In what way: the #define or the file itself?
> The concept itself (file-based scoreboards).
Right now we default to an anonymous shared-memory scoreboard and have
the option to create a file-based scoreboard (dictated by the presence
or absence
Anyone think it is a good idea if I did a
s/@/_at_/g
on the email addresses in the Changes file ?
Dw.
--
Dirk-Willem van Gulik
This updates config.layout for recent Red Hat Linux systems (bugzilla
#7422):
--- config.layout~ Mon Jan 14 09:39:25 2002
+++ config.layout Wed Mar 27 16:35:40 2002
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@
proxycachedir: $runtimedir/proxy
-# RedHat 5.x layout
+# Red Hat Linux 7.x layout
Greg Ames wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>
>>Well, it's kind of easy (and dangerous) to shove too much info into
>>the scoreboard, and cause some nasty overhead... That's the reason why
>>I put some things in the "extended status" area, so that we always
>>have the important stuff available, an
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Graham Leggett wrote:
> > When I looked at the proxy code I could see nothing obvious that had
> > changed - proxy uses the core methods for sending headers and data to
> > the frontend, not sure what changed.
>
> If I had to guess, I would say that t
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Graham Leggett wrote:
> When I looked at the proxy code I could see nothing obvious that had
> changed - proxy uses the core methods for sending headers and data to
> the frontend, not sure what changed.
If I had to guess, I would say that this change:
http://cvs.apache.org/
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Well, it's kind of easy (and dangerous) to shove too much info into
> the scoreboard, and cause some nasty overhead... That's the reason why
> I put some things in the "extended status" area, so that we always
> have the important stuff available, and the extra stuff only w
Brian,
I'm looking into this right now. I'll let you all know what I find out.
I have some concerns about the suggested fix. I hope to have a fix
by this afternoon.
Paul J. Reder
Brian Pane wrote:
> Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
>> I've spent the entire evening chasing some wacky mod_include bugs t
Joshua Slive wrote:
> There appears to be a major problem in the 1.3.24 proxy. See:
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7513
It was noted that this bug has appeared since 1.3.23 - will get a diff
between then and now to see if something along the way broke it.
When I looked at
Yes, Martin noted this as well. because of this, and the
Server header fixes, I'd like to see 1.3.25 in relatively short
order once we find out why. From what I can see, we explicitely
*remove* Transfer-Encoding, so I've no idea how it's getting
back in there... yet...
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> Th
Cliff Woolley wrote:
>I've spent the entire evening chasing some wacky mod_include bugs that
>surfaced as I was doing final testing on the bucket API patch. At first I
>assumed they were my fault, but upon further investigation I think the
>fact that they haven't surfaced until now is a coincide
There appears to be a major problem in the 1.3.24 proxy. See:
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7513
"MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 'never mind. It's a HP-UX specific stuff. The problem shows up because of
> the following reason :
>
> On HP-UX, accept has the following syntax (by default)
> int accept(int s, void *addr, int *addrlen);
>
> AND, so
Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> When you look at the output of mod_status (or Apache::VMonitor, the perl
> brother of mod_status) you cannot tell one port based vhost from
> another. Users ask me to present this info in Apache::VMonitor, because
> they want to tell one vhost from another in the output,
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> At 10:28 AM +0800 3/27/02, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>>Is there anything wrong with this patch? Thanks.
>>
>
>
> Nothing that I can see... I just don't see the need. We assume that
> knowledge of the virtual host implies knowledge of the IP address
> and port. We don't place t
At 10:28 AM +0800 3/27/02, Stas Bekman wrote:
>Is there anything wrong with this patch? Thanks.
>
Nothing that I can see... I just don't see the need. We assume that
knowledge of the virtual host implies knowledge of the IP address
and port. We don't place the IP address of IP-based vhosts in the
The concept itself (file-based scoreboards).
Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 12:13:35PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > ... maybe it's time to depreciate this :)
>
> In what way: the #define or the file itself?
>
> -aaron
>
--
==
"Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "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
"MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 'never mind. It's a HP-UX specific stuff. The problem shows up because of
> the following reason :
>
> On HP-UX, accept has the following syntax (by default)
> int accept(int s, void *addr, int *addrlen);
>
> AND, so
56 matches
Mail list logo
