11.06.2003 Hamburg-Alsterdorf:
Gewisse Angewohnheiten kann man offensichtlich nicht so einfach ablegen, auch
wenn sie recht bestialisch sind. In einigen Laendern ist es ueblich, Tiere zu
schaechten. Das bedeutet, ihnen wir die Kehle durchgeschnitten, um sie wenn sie
ausgeblutet sind zu
David Wheeler wrote:
On Jun 13, 2004, at 2:13 PM, Stas Bekman wrote:
I suppose so. Check that A-t generates ServerRoot setting
pointing to the local dir.
It does. I don't know what else might be the problem...what command does
A-T use to start Apache? Could it be different somehow than what A-t
On Jun 14, 2004, at 1:24 AM, Stas Bekman wrote:
A-T writes what it does:
Right, so does A-t:
/Users/david/dev/perl/mason-1.2/dist/t/httpd -f
/Users/david/dev/perl/mason-1.2/dist/t/httpd.conf
With Apache 1.x, A-T does this:
/usr/local/apache/bin/httpd -d
On Jun 14, 2004, at 10:30 AM, David Wheeler wrote:
So this is what I needed to know; thanks. I'll try to hack the Apache
startup code in this module to use -d and see if that helps things.
I was able to hack it in, but unfortunately it doesn't eliminate the
problem. Very odd...
Regards,
David
On Jun 14, 2004, at 10:37 AM, David Wheeler wrote:
I was able to hack it in, but unfortunately it doesn't eliminate the
problem. Very odd...
No, I take it back; it _did_ help! I just got a different error:
Ouch! ap_mm_create(1048576,
/Users/david/dev/perl/mason-1.2/dist/t/logs/httpd.mm.8917)
David Wheeler wrote:
On Jun 14, 2004, at 10:37 AM, David Wheeler wrote:
I was able to hack it in, but unfortunately it doesn't eliminate the
problem. Very odd...
No, I take it back; it _did_ help! I just got a different error:
Ouch! ap_mm_create(1048576,
looks like 30-35 real fixes already in 2.0.50-dev and another several approved
for backport, as well as a handful of enhancements
Jeff Trawick wrote:
looks like 30-35 real fixes already in 2.0.50-dev and another several
approved for backport, as well as a handful of enhancements
+1
Bill
Title: Any plans for RFC3744
Are there any plans afoot to implement support
for RFC3744 - WebDav ACL, either as a stand-alone
module or by modifying mod_dav/mod_dav_fs ???
-tony
Hi,
[I'm writing to the dev list because it seems that not enough apache
developers have noticed or taken interest into the original PR's
on this bug]
This is a real and easy to reproduce bug that has been agonizing me
for a quite a while. It's been reported since at least October '03.
1.3.x
From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 3:48 PM
Jeff Trawick wrote:
looks like 30-35 real fixes already in 2.0.50-dev and
another several
approved for backport, as well as a handful of enhancements
+1
Agreed. I'm willing to volunteer to do the
Actually I think this was addressed quite a while ago with the
introduction of the MaxMemFree directive. This problem sounds a lot
like the bucket issue where memory allocated for the bucket brigade that
pushes the data through from the CGI app to the wire, simply held on to
the memory
Hi list, Redhat is de-supporting Stronghold on Solaris
servers from next year. We use lot of Dynamo modules
configured in Apache, Anyone know a Vendor who
supports Apache?.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo!
So I tried setting MaxMemFree 5000, but it hasn't changed anything,
I was quickly able to bloat the child httpd by an extra 17+ Mb. and it hasn't
gone down since (I'm using the prefork MPM on Linux).
-m
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 01:45:26PM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote:
Actually I think this was
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 09:49:58AM -0700, Bennett, Tony - CNF wrote:
Are there any plans afoot to implement support
for RFC3744 - WebDav ACL, either as a stand-alone
module or by modifying mod_dav/mod_dav_fs ???
Hey Tony :-)
I'm not sure that anybody has specifically looked at it yet. I do
Jeff Trawick wrote:
looks like 30-35 real fixes already in 2.0.50-dev and
another several
approved for backport, as well as a handful of enhancements
+1
+1
Agreed. I'm willing to volunteer to do the TR. May aswell
cut a 2.1 at the same time aswell...
Sander
ehm ... please,
Bennett, Tony - CNF wrote:
...
Also...One question I had about 3744...
the RFC says in the Introduction:
...The operations you can perform are determined by a
single access control list (ACL) associated with a resource.
This seems to mirror UNIX's file mode...
...however, in UNIX if a
17 matches
Mail list logo
