Attached ia a patch for the Worker MPM that uses APR Atomics to change
the value of requests_this_child.
I changed it around to count *up*, instead of counting down... So I
would like someone else to look at it before I commit it.
Thanks,
-Paul
Index: server/mpm/worker/worker.c
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 03:48:39PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> Could be solved with an well-engineered, deterministic buildsystem ...
> Exactly this one which autoconf isnt.
How exactly do you think removing autoconf (and only autoconf) would help
packagers? I certainly don't see how this is
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 01:11:34AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Please describe what this actually does?
>
> Are we back to libproxy.la, libssl.la after this change?
For static modules, yes. This was modified in r102381 by Joe:
---
Correct use of libtool: libtool convenience libraries w
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 04:28:46PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> What I propose is that changes to packaging files (such as
> build/rpm/httpd.spec.in, build/pkg/buildpkg.sh, etc) should be CTR, just
> as documentation files are. This will not apply if other files (source
> code for example) are
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Could be solved with an well-engineered, deterministic buildsystem ...
Exactly this one which autoconf isnt.
Sounds like using a sledgehammer to knock in a nail to me :(
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
* Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would have been interesting, what exactly you were referring to.
> Could be solved with an well-engineered, deterministic buildsystem ...
> Exactly this one which autoconf isnt.
Sounds like a flame bot. Could you please turn it o
* André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could be solved with an well-engineered, deterministic buildsystem ...
Exactly this one which autoconf isnt.
cu
--
-
Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service
phone: +49 36207 519
* Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> >yeah, and then users have to repair broken ./configure scripts
> >again and again.
>
> Really? How often does this actually happen? My experiences with
> autoconf have been pretty good down the years and they get better as
* Graham Leggett wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There has been an ongoing problem with httpd and system package build
> scripts. Over time, changes have been backported to the build system
> (autoconf, etc) which breaks packaging scripts and files such as the RPM
> spec file.
>
> The packaging files are the
Hi all,
There has been an ongoing problem with httpd and system package build
scripts. Over time, changes have been backported to the build system
(autoconf, etc) which breaks packaging scripts and files such as the RPM
spec file.
The packaging files are then fixed, but the backport sits in the
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
yeah, and then users have to repair broken ./configure scripts
again and again.
Really? How often does this actually happen? My experiences with
autoconf have been pretty good down the years and they get better as
people get better at using it. It's certainly not beyond cri
* Nick Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry to resurrect this thread, but IMHO (as someone who's an appalling
> C developer), we really really need perchild or something like it to
> work. Having tried MetuxMPM (and got annoyed with its inability to deal
> with SSL), I believe some serio
* Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> pffft. Ease up on the veto there. Users don't need autoconf or
> libtool. The RM generates those files during the release process.
yeah, and then users have to repair broken ./configure scripts
again and again.
Well, at this point we have no need to u
13 matches
Mail list logo
