On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 03:27:25PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Greg Stein and I were just on the phone tracking down a Subversion
> bug, but now we think it's an Apache bug (well, he says it is, and I
> always find his suave, velvet-toned voice hypnotically convincing).
>
> I don't have an easy re
: I was hoping to do it as "cleanly" as possible, with no MSYS or
anything,
: to be able to stay just with the windows cmd shell. If not I'd be
using
: Cygwin.
:
Yes, you can compile Apache with
any Windows C compiler with the
help of only Windows OS files.
Use the Windows built-in script engi
On Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 02:05 PM, Arliss, Noah wrote:
> Hopefully this is not a redundant question.. Does this patch cover issues
> in
> mod_proxy as well, or were the issues introduced in 1.3.23 and later?
They were introduced later. The patch says that it is not sufficient for
the rele
Hopefully this is not a redundant question.. Does this patch cover issues in
mod_proxy as well, or were the issues introduced in 1.3.23 and later?
-N
-Original Message-
From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 9:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
coreadm is new to 2.7, I'm running 2.6.
And to answer the next posters' question, ulimit is unlimited.
I'll have to look into that dump core setuid thing, thanks,
--Perry
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 07:02:51PM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 06:32:56PM -0700, Perry Harrington
Karl Fogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Content-Type: application/vnd.svn-svndiff
>Content-Length: 35
>Host: localhost
>
>SVN [ *** missing data here *** ]
By the way, my mailer attempted to utf-8 encode this stuff and looks
like it munged some of the data. I don't think it
Greg Stein and I were just on the phone tracking down a Subversion
bug, but now we think it's an Apache bug (well, he says it is, and I
always find his suave, velvet-toned voice hypnotically convincing).
I don't have an easy reproduction recipe to offer (can produce a
recipe if absolutely necessa
At 19:55 25.06.2002, Günter Knauf wrote:
>I forwarded your suggestion to the MingW list; and here's the reply of one
>of the developers:
>
> > Can't say that I'll join this, but for libtool/autoconf/automake/m4 see
> > the MSYS links at www.mingw.org and the msysDTK alpha package in the SF
> > Fi
I forwarded your suggestion to the MingW list; and here's the reply of one of the
developers:
> Can't say that I'll join this, but for libtool/autoconf/automake/m4 see
> the MSYS links at www.mingw.org and the msysDTK alpha package in the SF
> Files page.
> Earnie.
> At 18:57 25.06.2002, Per
At 18:57 25.06.2002, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:
>>Is gnu make ported to mingw as well? If so, this intersects neatly with some
>>work related research deadlines I have coming up :-)
>
>I have a make running here, but I think I saw somewhere it's pretty
>crippled. I can't seem to find it back thou
At 17:18 25.06.2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>At 09:20 AM 6/25/2002, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:
>
>>Hi again Bill,
>>
>>At 22:51 19.06.2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>If we could set up an evening next week or over the weekend, perhaps we have
>>>an informal Win32/mingw hackathon on ir
At 09:20 AM 6/25/2002, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:
>Hi again Bill,
>
>At 22:51 19.06.2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>If we could set up an evening next week or over the weekend, perhaps we have
>>an informal Win32/mingw hackathon on irc://irc.openprojects.net/ #apr channel
>>to trade ideas w
Bill Stoddard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Some wrote...
>>> ...
>>
>> I must say I'm mystified by this discussion. It seems to be an
>> odd argument between this good practice vs that good practice.
>>
>> Roy's patch is simple, safe, and reduces the exposure substantially to a
>> know
Hi again Bill,
At 22:51 19.06.2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>Einar...
>
>This has been on my to-do for 3 years ;) Thanks for taking up the challenge.
>
>If we could set up an evening next week or over the weekend, perhaps we have
>an informal Win32/mingw hackathon on irc://irc.openprojects.
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> Jerry Baker wrote:
> > The doc at http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/vhosts/name-based.html has a
> > misleading statement.
> >
> > Configuration directives set in the main server context
> > (outside any container) will be used only
> > if they are not ov
Jerry Baker wrote:
> The doc at http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/vhosts/name-based.html has a
> misleading statement.
>
> Configuration directives set in the main server context
> (outside any container) will be used only
> if they are not overriden by the virtual host settings
The doc at http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/vhosts/name-based.html has a
misleading statement.
Configuration directives set in the main server context
(outside any container) will be used only
if they are not overriden by the virtual host settings.
This led me to the err
>
> Some wrote...
> > ...
>
> I must say I'm mystified by this discussion. It seems to be an
> odd argument between this good practice vs that good practice.
>
> Roy's patch is simple, safe, and reduces the exposure substantially to a
> known threat. I can't see any reason to defer letting
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Ben Hyde wrote:
> Some wrote...
> > ...
...
> Roy's patch is simple, safe, and reduces the exposure substantially to a
> known threat. I can't see any reason to defer letting it out;
> particularly now that people have been given a few days to give voice to
> any technical
> I cannot for the life of me get Apache to dump a core file.
..
> the abort doesn't trigger a core file.
What does ulimit give you ? and what does coreadm give you ?
Dw
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 04:48:43 -0700
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Query: bugs 8712 and 10156
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A substantial number of the developers spend a lot of time working on
> the bug database. The key here is that PRs need
21 matches
Mail list logo
