Has anyone successfully built httpd on Vista with the SDK and bundled
compiler?
Issac
Issac Goldstand wrote:
Has anyone successfully built httpd on Vista with the SDK and bundled
compiler?
Bundled compiler? If Vista or the most recent SDK includes a C compiler,
it would be news to me. Pointers?
You read correctly. 'tis sweet indeed. I think it's the compilers that
come with vs 2005 express editions. It includes compilers for x86, x64
and IA64 (all are x86 binaries and cross-compile for the target
platform, if I understood correctly - as I don't have any x64 OS
installed, I haven't
Issac Goldstand wrote:
I think it's the compilers that come with vs 2005 express editions.
Then the answer I suppose is ... yes. 2005 compiles are working fine.
FWIW, if you are trying to build from the GUI - that's it's own can
of worms, it mis-parses the RC flags from the .dsp upon
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Issac Goldstand wrote:
I think it's the compilers that come with vs 2005 express editions.
Then the answer I suppose is ... yes. 2005 compiles are working fine.
FWIW, if you are trying to build from the GUI - that's it's own can
of worms, it mis-parses the
Hi list,
thanks for the replies. Looks like squid in case Content-Length
response header is missing, does it's limitation in a hard way (snip
from src/client_side.c):
} else if (clientReplyBodyTooLarge(http, http-out.offset - 4096)) {
/* 4096 is a margin for the HTTP headers included
Hi,
I was looking for something more reliable so I now realize it will
require patching of mod_cache.c by adding some flag (i.e. setting some
key r-notes, registering mod_log_config modifier via log_pfn_register
or similar).
On 2/12/07, Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/12/07, Dziugas
On 2/13/07, Dziugas Baltrunas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi list,
thanks for the replies. Looks like squid in case Content-Length
response header is missing, does it's limitation in a hard way (snip
from src/client_side.c):
} else if (clientReplyBodyTooLarge(http, http-out.offset - 4096)) {
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:30:32 +
Ivan Ristic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. If there's no C-L ModSecurity will count the bytes as they arrive.
If there are too many the entire response will be blocked with 500
(and the error page sent to the client).
That's a tradeoff you make against
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
Sorry - for technical reasons (serious home server crash) I missed this
thread entirely, and for the same reason i'm lagging on the releasing
mod_python that's ready to go.
I am for making mod_python a TLP, and I also support Jim's suggestion of
making it
On 2/13/07, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:30:32 +
Ivan Ristic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. If there's no C-L ModSecurity will count the bytes as they arrive.
If there are too many the entire response will be blocked with 500
(and the error page sent to the
Here's a patch to allow the Script directive to handle
arbitrary (e.g., site-specific or experimental) methods.
Current 2.0 behaviour is 'if it's not something hard-coded
into me, it's rubbish and gets tossed.'
I notice that this functionality already exists in trunk,
so this is essentially a
As originally conceived, Limit METH METH2 was designed to handle
a very limited (once 30, now 62) different possible methods and
assign them a specific Satisfy/Require/Allow/Deny/Order directive
pattern that otherwise has no corresponding value for the un-Limit'ed
method possibilities. The model
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:00:09 -0600
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As originally conceived, Limit METH METH2 was designed to handle
a very limited (once 30, now 62) different possible methods and
assign them a specific Satisfy/Require/Allow/Deny/Order directive
pattern that
OK, sorry for the delay, the files should be out there shortly, the web
page and announcement should follow shortly.
In the process learned that it's not the end of the world if your PGP key
expires, the expiration date can be changed :)
Grisha
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Jim Gallacher wrote:
On 02/13/2007 08:37 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Here's a patch to allow the Script directive to handle
arbitrary (e.g., site-specific or experimental) methods.
Current 2.0 behaviour is 'if it's not something hard-coded
into me, it's rubbish and gets tossed.'
I notice that this
Nick Kew wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:00:09 -0600
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fundamental weakness of Limit is that it requires a module
to cooperate proactively, and many modules don't. That gives it
different semantics to other standard containers.
Yes, that is
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:46:38 -0600
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree. Limit is far too firmly established to change its
semantics. Either we keep it as-is (warts and all) or we scrap it,
and generate a startup error that advises the user of alternatives.
Well,
On 2/13/07, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Location /limited/ methods=GET POST HEAD
I like that a lot. It makes it clear that methods is an option (and
hence doesn't generally need to be there), and skirts the whole
ordering mess you get by adding a Method container.
Directory /dir/
I believe the httpd project is ready for a push towards the next major
version.
I believe everyone involved has learned many things from 2.x. I wasn't
here for all of the early 2.x development, so it is very easy to say I
am naive in the scope of something like pushing for 3.0.
Today, I view
So, I've been kicking around some ideas about where I personally would
like trunk to go for a couple months now.
My personal goals for 3.0:
- Write some cool stuff, that is fun to hack on.
- Create an environment that encourages others to contribute, A project
this large cannot and should not
This proposed list of requirements for a 3.0 platform. this list enables
a 'base' level of performance and design decisions to be made. If others
can make designs work with 'lessor' requirements, all the better, but
I'm not worried about it.
Proposed Requirements:
- C99 Compiler.
- High
On 2/14/07, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personally believe the push for 3.0 needs to be focused on how to
create a positive scratch your own itch for most of the developer. So,
in that spirit, what bothers everyone else about 2.x?
- Things I find lacking in 2.x are like you said
23 matches
Mail list logo
