[STATUS] (httpd-2.1) Wed Jul 2 23:45:28 EDT 2003

2003-07-02 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
APACHE 2.1 STATUS: -*-text-*- Last modified at [$Date: 2003/05/29 15:07:11 $] Release [NOTE that only Alpha/Beta releases occur in 2.1 development]: 2.1.0 : in development Please consult the following STATUS files for information on related proj

[STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Jul 2 23:45:19 EDT 2003

2003-07-02 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*- Last modified at [$Date: 2003/07/01 01:25:04 $] Release: 2.0.47 : in development 2.0.46 : released May 28, 2003 as GA. 2.0.45 : released April 1, 2003 as GA. 2.0.44 : released January 20, 2003 as GA.

[STATUS] (apache-1.3) Wed Jul 2 23:45:12 EDT 2003

2003-07-02 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*- Last modified at [$Date: 2003/07/01 12:29:12 $] Release: 1.3.28-dev: In development. Jim proposes a TAG on July 1, 2003 with a RELEASE on July 4, 2003 and offers to be RM. 1.3.27: Tagg

Re: [PATCH] util_ldap_cache shm broken in apache 2.x

2003-07-02 Thread Estrade Matthieu
Hi joe, First, thanks for the answer. I based my code on two examples: First the broken util_ldap_cache_mgr.c and i just changed util_ldap_rmm by st->util_ldap_rmm. Then on ssl_scache_shmht.c uring rmm to see if i have to check what return apr_rmm_malloc and calloc. (it's not done) After this,

Re: Just to clarify

2003-07-02 Thread Jeff Trawick
Graham Leggett wrote: Am I correct in understanding that commits to the v2.1 branch are commit then review? yes

Re: [PATCH] util_ldap_cache shm broken in apache 2.x

2003-07-02 Thread Joe Orton
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 03:01:43PM +0200, Estrade Matthieu wrote: ... > #if APR_HAS_SHARED_MEMORY > -if (util_ldap_shm) { > -return (void *)apr_rmm_addr_get(util_ldap_rmm, > apr_rmm_calloc(util_ldap_rmm, size)); > +if (st->util_ldap_shm) { > +return (void *)apr_rmm_addr_ge

Just to clarify

2003-07-02 Thread Graham Leggett
Hi all, Am I correct in understanding that commits to the v2.1 branch are commit then review? Regards, Graham -- - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "There's a moon over Bourbon Street

Re: LimitInternalRecursion for 1.3

2003-07-02 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 04:16 PM, André Malo wrote: * Jim Jagielski wrote: Noted in Apache 1.3's STATUS file... There is also a question (MMN bump) Hmm, in 2.x we decided that core_server_conf isn't public so we don't need such a bump. Perhaps for the ap_is_recursion_limit_exceeded functio

apache 2.0.46 : segmentation fault or hangs system

2003-07-02 Thread Peter Van Biesen
Hi, a couple of weeks ago I upgraded our servers from 2.0.43 to 2.0.46. Since then, child processes on our internal server either exit with a segmentation fault or keep running but take all CPU power. Hanging processes occur at a rate of about 5 per hour. As far as I can see the URLs they are serv