This is a bit of a problem... I've know about it for ages and keep
forgetting. Wasn't there a patch for this at some point? I know we
discussed it a while back. At the very least, the docs need to be
updated.
--Cliff
-- Forwarded message --
Date: 2 May 2002 03:06:54 -
Fr
"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
>
> Ok... now I see your second post - tack on this discrepancy and retitle
> the bug "Some versions of awk disagree with Win32 builds".
Cygwin Awk Incompatible With Apache Build
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8726
--
Jerry Baker
At 06:15 PM 5/1/2002, Jerry Baker wrote:
>I assume that pulling the APACHE_2_0_36 tag gets me the same things
>as the aforementioned tarballs? If so, built and ran on Windows XP ok.
>
>PS - There is some trouble with a couple of the awk actions on
>Windows XP at least. The following lines from mak
Sander Striker wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've done the final bump.
>
> Tarballs are available at:
> httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
> Please test and vote accordingly ;)
It's running on daedalus since Wednesday, 01-May-2002 18:18:16 PDT with no
apparent problems. I'll check it tomorrow, then vote.
Gr
Sander Striker wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I've done the final bump. Files marked with a [T] have made it to the
>roll. Files marked with [-] haven't. I have included the logs of the
>changes for your convenience. Lines marked RM: are lines with my commentary.
>
>Tarballs are available at:
> httpd.apache.o
Jerry Baker wrote:
>
> Don't worry too much. This has been going on for quite some time.
>
Nevermind. Sorry. It was a problem with the Cygwin awk.exe. It isn't
really an executable, but a symlink to gawk.exe. Problem is that Windows
doesn't have symlinks. Renaming gawk.exe to awk.exe fixed it.
Sander Striker wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've done the final bump. Files marked with a [T] have made it to the
> roll. Files marked with [-] haven't. I have included the logs of the
> changes for your convenience. Lines marked RM: are lines with my commentary.
>
> Tarballs are available at:
> http
Ben? Is Ben in the house?
david
> On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 11:40:13PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> > Tarballs are available at:
> > httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> +1 for beta.
>
> Passes httpd-test except for OpenSSL tests which seem to be confused
> by recent changes in OpenSSL in the Emai
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 11:40:13PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> Tarballs are available at:
> httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1 for beta.
Passes httpd-test except for OpenSSL tests which seem to be confused
by recent changes in OpenSSL in the Email oid to now be emailAddress.
Current OpenSSL sna
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> - Does this work on ... (linux)?
Yes, it seems to. Something else is screwy, but as a whole, it kind of
works at least, and this piece in particular seems to be doing fine.
--Cliff
--
Cl
> Because we have to keep the old API working, and because duplicating code
> everywhere is a bad thing.
How is it duplicated? This is new code.
> And while we are on the topic, anything that is posted to the mailing
> list is open for others to commit to the code base. That is how we work.
> P
> > safe_free()-like stuff does, but at least it is a compromise. OTOH,
> > as Cliff brought up, we'll get a SEGV if apr_palloc() returns NULL.
>
> Whoa, slow down. I said that was an argument someone had once posed, but
> I also said I thought it was ridiculous. We just don't need to worry
> a
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> safe_free()-like stuff does, but at least it is a compromise. OTOH,
> as Cliff brought up, we'll get a SEGV if apr_palloc() returns NULL.
Whoa, slow down. I said that was an argument someone had once posed, but
I also said I thought it was ridiculous.
Hi,
I've done the final bump. Files marked with a [T] have made it to the
roll. Files marked with [-] haven't. I have included the logs of the
changes for your convenience. Lines marked RM: are lines with my commentary.
Tarballs are available at:
httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I haven't had the
On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 01:49 PM, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>> And, consider my position on your calloc change in this patch as a
>> veto. If you want to remove calloc, then you should do so throughout
>> the code rather than in sporadic places that may make maintaining the
>> code a nightmar
> And, consider my position on your calloc change in this patch as a
> veto. If you want to remove calloc, then you should do so throughout
> the code rather than in sporadic places that may make maintaining the
> code a nightmare if we were to fix calloc. But, that is an issue
> that is now ope
I would be honored to support this as a third party module. I hope my
intentions were not seen as an attack on the group, but rather as positive
feedback from a user/developer. In light of all this, could I get some input
on the code itself (flames welcomed also)? My first move is to put the
direc
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Rose, Billy wrote:
> Therein lies the beauty of the configure script. IMHO an (average) admin
> would rather add a few simple readable directives as opposed to learning a
> pseudo programming technique in the config file. Not all admins are power
> users, but rather some poor
Therein lies the beauty of the configure script. IMHO an (average) admin
would rather add a few simple readable directives as opposed to learning a
pseudo programming technique in the config file. Not all admins are power
users, but rather some poor sap that got voted to do the job because nobody
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 12:29:35PM -0700, Joshua Slive wrote:
> I won't veto the addition of your module, but I also won't support it.
> People around here probably know already I have a bias towards general
> purpose directives that allow one set of code to do multiple things,
> rather than addin
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 12:22:13PM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> I did not post this so that you could commit it before I thought it had
> been properly reviewed. On top of that you modified my original patch
> in a way that you knew I would disagree with. Please do not do that again.
Sorry. My
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Rose, Billy wrote:
> Performance, and functional separation. No environment variables are
> created/referenced. It is obvious to a web admin (average Joe) what
> mod_auth_referer does, but not so obvious what SetEnvIf does in relation to
> specific needs. This makes a specific
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 07:15:40AM -, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> jerenkrantz02/05/01 00:15:40
>
> Modified:.CHANGES
>server/mpm/worker worker.c
> Log:
> Close sockets on worker MPM when doing a graceless restart. This should
> resolve some segfaults se
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > All I could tell is that the child's main thread is stuck in
> > thread-join.
Yep, seems like the same thing, though everything happens so fast it's
awfully hard to be sure. I *think* this is a valid backtrace:
(gdb) bt
#0 0x403a89be in select () f
On 1 May 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> All I could tell is that the child's main thread is stuck in
> thread-join. I have not checked to see what the worker threads were
> doing.
I'll try to investigate further. PS: FWIW, graceful is working
beautifully. I just did an absolute torture test on i
Cliff Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It shuts down, but ouch, is it nasty:
>
> [Wed May 01 14:52:26 2002] [warn] child process 11253 still did not exit,
> sending a SIGTERM
All I could tell is that the child's main thread is stuck in
thread-join. I have not checked to see what the worke
On 1 May 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > In any case, +1 on the patch. Worker won't be perfect, but at least
> > it will be better than 2.0.35.
>
> I just committed it. I'd love to get some feedback from other Linux
> users before a roll, though.
It shuts down, but ouch, is it nasty:
[Wed May
FWIW, is you don't have writev and are not using ssl, ab in the 1.3 tree is
broken and won't even compile at present :(
We really should fix it - but maybe the person who broke it could do that as
I'm sure they know what they were intending with the changes.
david
- Original Message -
F
Performance, and functional separation. No environment variables are
created/referenced. It is obvious to a web admin (average Joe) what
mod_auth_referer does, but not so obvious what SetEnvIf does in relation to
specific needs. This makes a specific function a component with separation
of logic f
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 01:24:47PM -0400, Paul J. Reder wrote:
> Is there any reason we can't alter the following code (from ssl_engine_pphrase.c
> around line 730) to move the "apr_file_puts(prompt, writetty);" inside the
> for statement so that on errors the prompt is reprinted? This is to answe
Is there any reason we can't alter the following code (from ssl_engine_pphrase.c
around line 730) to move the "apr_file_puts(prompt, writetty);" inside the
for statement so that on errors the prompt is reprinted? This is to answer
bug number 8320 (an empty passphrase results in an ambiguous state
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Rose, Billy wrote:
> Could someone please take a look at this module and see if it would benefit
> Apache 2? It authenticates based on HTTP referer. It doesn't authenticate
> requests ending in "/" as that is for the indexing to decide on. Also, any
> pointers are warmly welc
Could someone please take a look at this module and see if it would benefit
Apache 2? It authenticates based on HTTP referer. It doesn't authenticate
requests ending in "/" as that is for the indexing to decide on. Also, any
pointers are warmly welcome.
.conf file directives:
AuthReferer [on|o
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 08:58:57AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 05:54:49PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Would it be that we need to put that APR version also in places like Error
> > Log or on the -V command line ? As to help people file more meaning ful
> > bug
> specific versions of APR that must be in-tree. Remember that people
> can only legitimately file bug reports off released versions. People
Not necessarily. As Ryan said, you want the bug reports *before* the release
so that you can fix them. It'd be good for reproducability if reports be
file
On 1 May 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> I just committed it. I'd love to get some feedback from other Linux
> users before a roll, though.
I will test it within the hour.
--Cliff
--
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlottesvil
"Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
> > Sent: 01 May 2002 15:36
>
> > If somebody wants to play, this is perhaps all that is necessary. I
> > need to straighten out a test script problem on the machine
> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 05:54:49PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Would it be that we need to put that APR version also in places like
> Error
> > Log or on the -V command line ? As to help people file more meaning
ful
> > bug reports
> specific versions of APR that must be in-tree. Remember that people
> can only legitimately file bug reports off released versions. People
Ack - I had not thougd of that - that is perfectly true - so a release
version of Apache implies a single APR version - even across platforms.
Dw.
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 05:54:49PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Would it be that we need to put that APR version also in places like Error
> Log or on the -V command line ? As to help people file more meaning ful
> bug reports ?
At this point, I don't think so because httpd-2.0 will only wor
> Personally I just don't see what the big deal is. People like having ab
:-) :-) - I think that all that happened was that the #define in the 1.3
version unintentionally got translated during the 2.0 move to the
BASE_SERVER version; not realizing it had intentioanlly its own
version number dis
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Sander Striker wrote:
> Although the version number may not help in being able to compare results,
> it does help to track down what the state of the sourcetree was when this
> ab was compiled. So, +1 on the disclaimer, -0 on removing all signs of
> a version number.
Agreed.
Outch - my fault. Fixed
At 09:31 AM 5/1/2002, Jerry wrote:
> copy modules\experimental\Release\mod_ext_filter.so "\Apache2\modules"
><.y
>The system cannot find the file specified.
>NMAKE : fatal error U1077: 'copy' : return code '0x1'
>Stop.
>Error executing NMAKE.
>
>Apache.exe - 1 error(s),
Just to have some fun - Below is the result of running a build of AB
against the same apache 1.3.0 (stock)
It is a simple loop - checkout against a tag; cd apache-1.3/src && cp
Configuration.tmp && Configuration && ./Configure && make && cd support &&
make) and then run 20 times ./ab -c 30 -n 10
> +Apache developers: please ensure that your key is also available via the
> +PGP keyservers (such as pgpkeys.mit.edu).
That should not be necessary. The KEYS file is in a well known public
location which serves the same purposes for our set of public keys as
the keyserver.
-aaron
"Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Meaning? (I hope there isn't a short timeout on the join).
> >
> > meaning that the parent process will give up on us ever exiting and
> > will send SIGKILL
> >
> > there is no timeout on the join
> >
> >> I think it is perfectly acceptable to
Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Index: server/mpm/worker/worker.c
> ===
> RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/server/mpm/worker/worker.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.121
> diff -u -r1.121 worker.c
> --- server/mpm/worker/worker.c
copy modules\experimental\Release\mod_ext_filter.so "\Apache2\modules"
<.y
The system cannot find the file specified.
NMAKE : fatal error U1077: 'copy' : return code '0x1'
Stop.
Error executing NMAKE.
Apache.exe - 1 error(s), 4 warning(s)
All I did was run InstallBin -> Build Apache.exe.
--
J
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
> Sent: 01 May 2002 15:36
> If somebody wants to play, this is perhaps all that is necessary. I
> need to straighten out a test script problem on the machine that
> regularly exhibits the segfault, then try this out
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
> Sent: 01 May 2002 16:04
> "Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
>>> Sent: 01 May 2002 15:36
>>
>>> If somebody wants to p
Sunitha Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any pointers on when and where the accept lock is deleted?
> thanks,
I don't think the lock is cleaned up in the child processes. I think
it is cleaned up in the parent process when pconf goes away.
Is there a problem you're seeing?
--
Jeff Trawic
"Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
> > Sent: 01 May 2002 15:36
>
> > If somebody wants to play, this is perhaps all that is necessary. I
> > need to straighten out a test script problem on the machine
* Jeff Trawick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> Thom May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * Jeff Trawick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> > > Why doesn't the code to move things around after building fix it up
> > > and not require the user to specify "-d my-server-root"? That's what
> > > Apache's i
Sander Striker wrote:
> I was going to roll 2.0.36, but I want to wait for this last
> worker change. Unfortunately I don't have the time to pursue
> the issue now, so if someone does, please feel free to take
> care of this annoying beast.
BTW: Is there any problem with the CVS version of mod_
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
> Sent: 01 May 2002 15:36
> If somebody wants to play, this is perhaps all that is necessary. I
> need to straighten out a test script problem on the machine that
> regularly exhibits the segfault, then try this out
If somebody wants to play, this is perhaps all that is necessary. I
need to straighten out a test script problem on the machine that
regularly exhibits the segfault, then try this out there.
The caveat with this is that if a worker thread is doing
time-consuming processing (e.g., lengthy databas
"Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I was going to roll 2.0.36, but I want to wait for this last
> worker change. Unfortunately I don't have the time to pursue
> the issue now, so if someone does, please feel free to take
> care of this annoying beast.
I'll start working on
Hi,
I was going to roll 2.0.36, but I want to wait for this last
worker change. Unfortunately I don't have the time to pursue
the issue now, so if someone does, please feel free to take
care of this annoying beast.
Sander
> From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 01 May 2002 15
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
> Sent: 01 May 2002 14:53
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > jerenkrantz02/05/01 00:15:40
> >
> > Modified:.CHANGES
> >server/mpm/worker worker.c
> > Log:
> > Close sockets on wo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> jerenkrantz02/05/01 00:15:40
>
> Modified:.CHANGES
>server/mpm/worker worker.c
> Log:
> Close sockets on worker MPM when doing a graceless restart. This should
> resolve some segfaults see when doing such restarts.
(My apologi
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Sander Striker wrote:
> > -1 on anything which
> > -> shows in the output of AB of versions of AB which -can-
> >be compared different version numbers
> > or
> > -> which shows in the output of AB identical version numbers
> >even though the resu
> From: Brian Pane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 01 May 2002 09:50
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 11:41:57PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>-1 on anything which
> >>-> shows in the output of AB of versions of AB which -can-
> >> be compared diffe
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 11:41:57PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>-1on anything which
>> -> shows in the output of AB of versions of AB which -can-
>> be compared different version numbers
>>
>
>Personally, I think that is your logical fallacy. I d
63 matches
Mail list logo
