Re: [STATUS] (apache-1.3) long pathnames with many components

2002-11-20 Thread Glenn
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:45:11PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > APACHE 1.3 STATUS:-*-text-*- > Last modified at [$Date: 2002/10/31 05:57:52 $] [...] > RELEASE NON-SHOWSTOPPERS BUT WOULD BE REAL NICE TO WRAP THESE UP: > [...] > * long path

[STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Nov 20 23:45:16 EST 2002

2002-11-20 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*- Last modified at [$Date: 2002/11/20 21:43:24 $] Release: 2.0.44 : in development 2.0.43 : released October 3, 2002 as GA. 2.0.42 : released September 24, 2002 as GA. 2.0.41 : rolled September 16, 2002.

[STATUS] (apache-1.3) Wed Nov 20 23:45:11 EST 2002

2002-11-20 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*- Last modified at [$Date: 2002/10/31 05:57:52 $] Release: 1.3.28-dev: In development 1.3.27: Tagged September 30, 2002. Announced Oct 3, 2002. 1.3.26: Tagged June 18, 2002. 1.3.25: Tagged June 17, 2002. Not re

Re: [Patch] Be more selective on includes

2002-11-20 Thread Joshua Slive
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, André Malo wrote: > * Thom May wrote: > > > This is in response to a debian bug request; basically it just tightens up > > the list of allowed characters, so we don't include .dotfiles and backups > > etc. > > Thoughts? > > hmm. I don't like it. The most can easily be done wi

Re: [Patch] Be more selective on includes

2002-11-20 Thread André Malo
* Thom May wrote: > This is in response to a debian bug request; basically it just tightens up > the list of allowed characters, so we don't include .dotfiles and backups > etc. > Thoughts? hmm. I don't like it. The most can easily be done with normal wildcard matching. If your patch is applied

[Patch] Be more selective on includes

2002-11-20 Thread Thom May
This is in response to a debian bug request; basically it just tightens up the list of allowed characters, so we don't include .dotfiles and backups etc. Thoughts? -Thom Index: server/config.c === RCS file: /home/cvspublic/httpd-2.0/s

Re: Apache 1.3 and invalid headers

2002-11-20 Thread Roy T. Fielding
Does anyone know what the behaviour of Apache 1.3 is under the circumstances where the HTTP request or response contains an invalid request header? Specifically, when the Connection header contains something other than 'close'? There is nothing invalid about that -- connection is completely exte

Re: Apache 1.3 and invalid headers

2002-11-20 Thread Rasmus Lerdorf
You mean when you send a request header that looks something like this? ~> telnet localhost 80 Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost. Escape character is '^]'. GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: localhost Connection: foo HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:52:24 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.28-dev (Unix)

Apache 1.3 and invalid headers

2002-11-20 Thread Andy Yang
Hello all, Does anyone know what the behaviour of Apache 1.3 is under the circumstances where the HTTP request or response contains an invalid request header? Specifically, when the Connection header contains something other than 'close'? It appears to immediately close the connection - can anyo

2.0, 2.1 branch, WAS: Re: Renames

2002-11-20 Thread Sander Striker
Jeff Trawick wrote: Thom May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: So what is the consensus with the renames? The patch is available from http://cvs.apache.org/~thommay/full-rename-diff and seems good - it builds and passes tests on (at least) BeOS and OS X. Also, httpd and svn don't need any changes to st

Re: mod_usertrack.c modifications and child seg faults

2002-11-20 Thread Joe Oppegaard
On 20 Nov 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > Joe Oppegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Once I switch over to the if statement that first checks for r->content_type > > then calls strcmp, everything works just as expected. > > > > Any ideas on why this is? > > the simple answer is "because r->c

Re: mod_usertrack.c modifications and child seg faults

2002-11-20 Thread Jeff Trawick
Joe Oppegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Once I switch over to the if statement that first checks for r->content_type > then calls strcmp, everything works just as expected. > > Any ideas on why this is? the simple answer is "because r->content_type has not yet been set at this point" and if

Re: Writing new module for Apache 2.0

2002-11-20 Thread Jeff Trawick
"Prajakt Deolasee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > static void xyz_register_hook(apr_pool_t *p) > { > xyz_hook_response_handler(ap_xyz_response_handler, NULL, NULL, >APR_HOOK_REALLY_LAST); > } ... > But this function is never called. Can somebody tell me whats wrong with this. If you hook it

Re: Renames (Gee, it's a mail from thom, it must be renames)

2002-11-20 Thread Jeff Trawick
Thom May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So what is the consensus with the renames? The patch is available from > http://cvs.apache.org/~thommay/full-rename-diff and seems good - it builds > and passes tests on (at least) BeOS and OS X. > Also, httpd and svn don't need any changes to still work - th

Writing new module for Apache 2.0

2002-11-20 Thread Prajakt Deolasee
Hi All, I am trying to write a new module for post processing of the response. I am using Apache 2.0 as a reverse proxy. I wrote a modeul called mod_xyz. Apache could load the module properly and the xyz_register_hook method was also called properly. In the "hook" function I wrote following code,