Are all of the options parsed by Apache::TestMM::filter_args()
documented somewhere?
Thanks,
David
David Wheeler wrote:
Are all of the options parsed by Apache::TestMM::filter_args()
documented somewhere?
It accepts all the configuration options that you'd normall pass to t/TEST.
i.e.
% t/TEST -help
...
configuration options:
-access_module_name access module name
-apxs
% t/TEST -help
...
and in case it's not obvious (and for the archives) the '...' represents a
slurry of options from TestRun.pm, whereas the shown 'configuration options'
represent those from TestConfig.pm. I was wondering where -preamble and
some others were and it took me a minute :)
Geoffrey Young wrote:
% t/TEST -help
...
and in case it's not obvious (and for the archives) the '...' represents a
slurry of options from TestRun.pm, whereas the shown 'configuration options'
represent those from TestConfig.pm. I was wondering where -preamble and
some others were and it took me
Geoffrey Young wrote:
% t/TEST -help
...
and in case it's not obvious (and for the archives) the '...' represents a
slurry of options from TestRun.pm, whereas the shown 'configuration options'
represent those from TestConfig.pm. I was wondering where -preamble and
some others were and it took me
specifically what operations need make or nmake? i need to
know so i can provide appropriately-prepared files so it
won't try to run it. this is so i can run it on systems
that don't have a developer environment installed..
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini
Sometimes people report bugs and/or post patches on these lists and for
whatever reason they are never properly addressed. Discussion on the list is
great, but it is all too easy for the e-mails move out of sight. The mail
arrives all too quickly. The best action you can take to avoid the
Rather than talk about what the name of the directive is, I'd like to raise
the issue does workaround involved really work or not.
I have a customer who runs a lightly loaded W2K server with Apache 2.0.45 +
selected patches and every couple of hours it hangs for 10-15 minutes and
then magically
Tikka, Sami wrote:
Rather than talk about what the name of the directive is, I'd like to raise
the issue does workaround involved really work or not.
I have a customer who runs a lightly loaded W2K server with Apache 2.0.45 +
selected patches and every couple of hours it hangs for 10-15 minutes
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 06:51:41PM -0800, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
Do we need to do the following ? I tried it - the test continued to a
certain extent, only to fail again after some time (with the same
stack trace)
What's the repro case for this? You're running swamp against an
SSL-HTTP
Whatever uses ap_get_server_port() would use the Port number
included in the Host: header. This includes mod_vhost_alias,
mod_proxy, mod_rewrite and Apache itself when it creates self-
referential URLs (hence UseCanonicalName).
Note that it's ONLY when UseCanonicalName is Off that this is
an
The core issue with this bug is that we trample on any
pre-existing Set-Cookie headers by willy-nilly overwriting
our response header with that generated by the origin server.
Should we honor existing Set-Cookie headers, or is that
non-compliant?
Yes. I tested something similar (just don't register the cleanup function) - and
things seemed to work without any SEGV. I had the same question as yours : if a
ssl_filter_io_shutdown() was already done by EOC flag, the filter_cleanup should be a
noop - why should it fail ?
Anyways, it appears
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Sometimes people report bugs and/or post patches on these lists and for
whatever reason they are never properly addressed. Discussion on the list is
great, but it is all too easy for the e-mails move out of sight. The mail
arrives all too quickly.
Nick Kew wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Sometimes people report bugs and/or post patches on these lists and for
whatever reason they are never properly addressed. Discussion on the list is
great, but it is all too easy for the e-mails move out of sight. The mail
arrives all
Bojan Smojver wrote:
I think I finally found the culprit. At first I thought it was the
core_output_filter, but it turns out that emulate_sendfile (incorrectly)
assumes that it is at the beginning of the file even when it's not.
The attached patch works here when I have the combo of buckets as
-Original Message-
From: Joe Orton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SNIP]
I think the correct fix is to stop trying to send the shutdown from the
cleanup, which didn't actually work anyway. Can you test something
like:
It works (atleast I don't see any SEGV's). The question still remains, but
Hello,
Ever noticed the following set of messages in the error_log - they can really
fill up the log file pretty quickly! I can't really get much useful information (and I
don't even know what 'internal error' means ?)
---
[Wed Mar 24 13:55:46
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
All of the following seems stale... no?
Compile-Time Configuration Issues
Atomic Operations
The --enable-nonportable-atomics option is relevant for the following platforms:
Solaris on SPARC
By default, APR uses mutex-based atomics on
who are you? stop emailing me!
- Original Message -
From: Guenter Knauf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 6:35 PM
Subject: [PATCH] htdigest.c - remove ugly dependance on external cp; use
apr_temp_dir_get() for getting temp dir /corrected
Hi,
On Mar 18, 2004, at 12:21 AM, Sander Striker wrote:
I've put the 2.0.49 tarballs up at:
I'm not entirely happy about IPv6/IPv4 behaviour on at least FreeBSD
5.2.1 and MacOSX 10.3.{2,3}, possibly others.
I'm seeing the following when running the perl-framework. All three
boxes have IPv6
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:18:37 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You built from scratch - can you give us a backtrace according to
VisualStudio or Dr Watson?
Sure enough:
allocator_free(apr_allocator_t * allocator=0xffec, apr_memnode_t *
node=0x) Line 327 + 0x6
Please apply the patch posted by Joe to ssl_engine_io.c. The problem should go away !
-Madhu
-Original Message-
From: Juanma Barranquero [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 5:51 AM
To: William A. Rowe, Jr.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2.0.49 rolled
On Thu, 18 Mar
You get 2 for the price of 1! 27927 and 27928 :-)
BTW, thanks for the hint.
Quoting Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sometimes people report bugs and/or post patches on these lists and for
whatever reason they are never properly addressed. Discussion on the list is
great, but it is all too
Bojan Smojver wrote:
You get 2 for the price of 1! 27927 and 27928 :-)\
BTW, if you're very actively discussing a patch on the list, especially with
multiple people, you might want to wait until discussion drops before opening a
PR, as it would only become meaningful if the discussion dies with
Um ...
On March 24, 2004 05:30 pm, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
Ever noticed the following set of messages in the error_log - they can
really fill up the log file pretty quickly! I can't really get much
useful information (and I don't even know what 'internal error' means
?)
It's my
-Original Message-
From: Geoff Thorpe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SNIP]
---
[Wed Mar 24 13:55:46 2004] [error] shmcb_insert_encoded_session
internal error [Wed Mar 24 13:55:46 2004] [error] can't store a
session!
[Wed Mar 24 13:55:46 2004]
On March 24, 2004 10:37 pm, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
This is not supposed to happen...
Well. It's fairly easy to reproduce the problem - I used sslswamp (new
session-id everytime) with a shmcb memory size of 64000, and 300 sec
timeout. You can get a ton of those error messages in the
OK. Just wanted to try out the newly learned skill ;-)
Quoting Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
BTW, if you're very actively discussing a patch on the list, especially with
multiple people, you might want to wait until discussion drops before opening
a PR, as it would only become meaningful if
APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/03/22 15:39:37 $]
Release:
1.3.30-dev: In development. Jim proposes a release around the
end of March, 2004.
1.3.29: Tagged October 24, 2003. Announced Oct 29, 2003.
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/03/25 02:40:17 $]
Release:
2.0.50 : in development
2.0.49 : released March 19, 2004 as GA.
2.0.48 : released October 29, 2003 as GA.
2.0.47 : released July 09, 2003 as GA.
APACHE 2.1 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/01/04 15:08:00 $]
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
33 matches
Mail list logo
