On Apr 21, 2006, at 9:35 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Please test and vote on releasing httpd 2.2.2, bundling APR and APR-
Util 1.2.7.
Up and running on www.apache.org, running worker (as was 2.2.0) with
64 threads per child.
The 72 hour window will end Monday, April 24, 23:00 Pacific Daylight
Can I impose upon somebody to explain buckets and brigades to me? That is,
assuming you guys are finished arguing about copyrights. :)
Specifically, I'd like to know how they relate to request processing, but also
how they work in general. I know that a brigade is a FIFO of buckets, but...
I'm
Please test and vote on releasing httpd 2.2.2, bundling APR and APR-Util
1.2.7.
Download from:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Changes:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/CHANGES_2.2
MD5s:
9c759a9744436de6a6aa2ddbc49d6e81 httpd-2.2.2.tar.bz2
a0d9f7f6f70110a5965340eb7f3a3e66 httpd-2.2.2.tar.g
On 4/19/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that the Proxy FastCGI module is at a point where
we should consider folding it into trunk, with the hope
of it being backported to 2.2.x and some not-too-distant
future.
Since everyone seems to be in favor of merging it I went ahead
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:39 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
For the sanity of all the rest of us project members, let us
please work from documented policy though, can we? And feh - let's just
have done with this tarball release and revisit once policy is *set*.
FTR, we
On 4/21/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know of any reason to hurry a 2.0.x release (heck, I don't
> know of any reason to continue its development), but I also don't think
> releasing one with modified copyright years is any more or less legal
> than continuing to distrib
On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:39 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
-1 to adopting Jackrabbits' license until Roy's (very reasonable)
nit on the
language is addressed. -1 to removing copyright until we have an
absolute,
documented policy from ASF legal. I'm glad you and Roy feel
entirely assured
tha
Wow, this discussion is getting out of hand. It is not a technical
issue and thus isn't going to get resolved by throwing paint cans
at the shed. For years, the ASF had been following the examples
commonly seen in commercial software products of placing a general
copyright header all over the pl
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/21/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You are right that we don't update *all* the copyrights, nobody debated that.
We had a simple (too simple) search of touched files to refresh copyright, and
I have no issue if we should undo that and selectivel
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Copyright dates on 1.3/2.0/2.2 forthcoming releases?
AFAICT, sources are -all- still copyright 2005. That's not right.
Even if we determine we'll -quit- updating the copyrights until they
are modified, we need to update them when we modify them.
This was the exact
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/21/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You are correct. Only the years in which the file was actually changed
should be listed in the copyright.
If we want to get pedantic, it should only be year of first publication. ;-)
Yes. What is publication? W
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 01:46:21PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> which is all well and good, but doesn't assert copyrights.
And that's fine, there is no need to assert a copyright :)
> I'm really completely unclear how this protects the files we author,
> the files authored by others (whic
On 4/21/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are right that we don't update *all* the copyrights, nobody debated that.
> We had a simple (too simple) search of touched files to refresh copyright, and
> I have no issue if we should undo that and selectively update copyrights on
Plüm wrote:
Have you checked if you can write the files with the default mod_dav_fs
provider to
the disk?
good suggestion, thanks...
Ok, same test setup that I posted about the other day, but this time I used mod_dav_fs.
I'm getting slightly different behavior, in that the upload works in
On 4/21/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are correct. Only the years in which the file was actually changed
> should be listed in the copyright.
If we want to get pedantic, it should only be year of first publication. ;-)
For reference, here's Larry Rosen's post to legal-discus
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/21/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I really have no problem if Cliff posts to the list telling us "It is
not necessary to update copyright dates" - and if he does that, we will
revert before rolling 2.2.0.
Feel free to read the whole thread.
As I read it, yes it appears that even just changing the last
date does not make sense. For example assuming a valid 1999-2004
and the file is updated in 2006, 1999-2006 would not be
correct, if I understand it, but instead 1999-2004,2006
would be "more correct"... I think :)
In any case, I rever
On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We can not make statements in the code that we know to be inaccurate.
Once you decided to open this can of worms, we must resolve it before
publishing a release. -- justin
So, basically, we're dead in the water until we develop and apply
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Migrate to the jackrabbit notice, because at least it has been
approved and we judge the inconvience of seemingly slightly
adversarial to users less bad than the inconvience of having
less credibility in legal matters.
If the la
On 4/21/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really have no problem if Cliff posts to the list telling us "It is
> not necessary to update copyright dates" - and if he does that, we will
> revert before rolling 2.2.0.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/20
Jim Jagielski wrote:
So does this mean that no ASF project can release any code
until we get this resolved *and* that they all incorporate
those changes to fix the copyright notice changes? I'm not
being a pain, I'm really curious. If so, then that's a major
thing and (1) we better be fully sure
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>
> So, I think our real options are;
>
> 's/-//' and simply delete the latter year entirely.
> This is minimal change, but assumes that I actually have a clue here
> and get what the legal issue is. And this hasn't been approved
> by
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:51:19PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >
> >It matters that we've now said on a public list that we know the
> >notices are incorrect. Before, we actually believed that those
> >changes were right. That's a huge difference. -- justin
>
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> On 4/21/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You know, this is hardly the first time we've done that... Yes, it's
> > been awhile since we made those unilateral changes, but by the
> > above standards, what we had even before wasn't "really" correct,
> > si
On 4/21/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How is this a showstopper? As has been pointed out, your comments are late
> to the table, and this certainly isn't a change in existing practice, and
> most certainly doesn't invalidate the (initial and appropriate) copyrights.
Bah.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
It matters that we've now said on a public list that we know the
notices are incorrect. Before, we actually believed that those
changes were right. That's a huge difference. -- justin
You've said so. Roy's said so. Colm said it's irrelevant. I've seen no
statemen
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:39:12PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I don't concur with Colm, the tarball is the release and changing the legal
> text is more significant, perhaps, than even the code itself. So it's yet
> another bump that strikes me as silly.
Just to be clear, I didn't mean
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/19/06, Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though, which is a
potential open issue.
I'
On 4/21/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You know, this is hardly the first time we've done that... Yes, it's
> been awhile since we made those unilateral changes, but by the
> above standards, what we had even before wasn't "really" correct,
> since those had changed copyrights on fi
On 4/21/06, Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We know that now, but those commits went through before it became so
> clear that our previous practise was so wrong.
The entire email exchange happened while the US West Coasters were
asleep. I sent an email saying, "Don't do that" as so
On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Let's just add Jackrabbit's disclaimer and be done with the whole year
thing forever. The best thing of course would be to not have done
anything at all (); but that train left the station when all of
those commits got made prematurely...
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 10:21:18AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I'm -1 due to the copyright notice changes. A bunch of files
> magically added years to copyright notices (i.e. from -2004 to -2006)
> when those files didn't actually substantively change during that
> period. That's a no-no.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> On 4/19/06, Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting at;
> >
> > http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
> >
> > This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though, which is a
>
On 4/19/06, Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting at;
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though, which is a
> potential open issue.
I'm -1 due to the c
>>> On 4/19/2006 at 10:59:48 am, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Colm MacCarthaigh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting
at;
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though, wh
Like in 2.0.55 it builds not mod_deflate with zlib 1.2.3 , its complaining
that some files are not found, like srclib\zlib\infblock.h ,
srclib\zlib\infcodes.h, srclib\zlib\infutil.h.
There is a patch for mod_deflate 2.053 at
http://smithii.com/files/httpd-2.0.54_zlib-1.2.2.patch (did not tried
Hello,
how can i get the filename only of the requested uri? For example if
"http://www.example.com/test.html"; is requestet, i only want "test.html".
request_rec::filename only gives the full filename on disk.
Thanks!
Markus
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Plüm, Rüdiger,
> Also +1 (compiled and started) on
>
> Solaris 8, gcc 3.3.2
> Solaris 9, gcc 3.3.2
Forgot to mention: Both Solaris SPARC
Regards
Rüdiger
Passes perl test framework and others on:
Sol8/Sparc, OS X 10.4.6, Suse 9.2, Suse 10.0
+1
On Apr 19, 2006, at 12:59 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This doesn't include a changed
Title: porting from 2.0.53 to 2.2 issues
Hi,
I am trying to upgrade apache from 2.0.53 to 2.2. I am getting lot of compilation errors in my module related to regex_t, APR_OFFSET, etc.
Can anybody refer me to some docs which can help me in this?
What all things should be taken care of
40 matches
Mail list logo
