Nick Kew wrote:
> I was wondering about that, but reluctant to propose a backport
> from trunk without doing some more research. If you want to make it
> a backport proposal, I'll try and get my brain around it (and one or
> two related issues) in the morning.
The main thing I'd point to is t
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> If mod_dbd.c from trunk works in 2.2.x, we should just have that
> instead. No need to carry two different things if the new stuff is
> backward compatible.
If you need to, you can just drop the mod_dbd.c from trunk into
2.2.x; we do that and it works fine. The main pro
Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi,
>> On 5/9/07, Guenter Knauf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Apache 2.0.x -> has to use APR 0.9.x
>>> Apache 2.2.x -> has to use APR 1.2.x
>>> Apache 2.3.x -> has to use APR 1.3.x
>>>
>>> is this now a mandatory relationship, or is it valid to:
>>>
>>> build Apache 2.2.x wi
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
On 5/9/07, Guenter Knauf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Apache 2.0.x -> has to use APR 0.9.x
Apache 2.2.x -> has to use APR 1.2.x
Apache 2.3.x -> has to use APR 1.3.x
is this now a mandatory relationship, or is it valid to:
build Apache 2.2.x with APR 1.3.x
Hi,
> On 5/9/07, Guenter Knauf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Apache 2.0.x -> has to use APR 0.9.x
>> Apache 2.2.x -> has to use APR 1.2.x
>> Apache 2.3.x -> has to use APR 1.3.x
>>
>> is this now a mandatory relationship, or is it valid to:
>>
>> build Apache 2.2.x with APR 1.3.x
> This would like
On Thu, 10 May 2007 10:02:12 -0700
Chris Darroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
>
> > Thanks. I've just reviewed both patches, and added them as an
> > attachment to PR#42327 and a proposal in STATUS.
>
>I apologize for joining this thread a little late. I know it's
> more co
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 10:02 -0700, Chris Darroch wrote:
>I apologize for joining this thread a little late. I know it's
> more complicated, but I'm inclined to suggest trying to bring the more
> comprehensive trunk fixes into 2.2.x.
If mod_dbd.c from trunk works in 2.2.x, we should just have
Nick Kew wrote:
> Thanks. I've just reviewed both patches, and added them as an
> attachment to PR#42327 and a proposal in STATUS.
I apologize for joining this thread a little late. I know it's
more complicated, but I'm inclined to suggest trying to bring the more
comprehensive trunk fixes i
Michael Peters wrote:
> The attached patch should fix this problem in Makefile.PL by doing the test
> for
> mod_perl version before the test for Apache::Test.
Weird. This seems to have been a problem that was noticed in 2005 and Stas
recommended almost the exact same patch.
http://mail-archives
This is kind of convoluted, but bare with me:
I have Apache2/mod_perl2 and Apache::Test installed on my system (FC6) in the
standard locations. I now want to install Apache1/mod_perl1 and libapreq 1.33 in
a separate location that doesn't have Apache::Test. Now running Makefile.PL in
for libapreq (
On 5/9/07, Guenter Knauf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
currently from what I see we use:
Apache 2.0.x -> has to use APR 0.9.x
Apache 2.2.x -> has to use APR 1.2.x
Apache 2.3.x -> has to use APR 1.3.x
is this now a mandatory relationship, or is it valid to:
build Apache 2.2.x with APR 1.3.
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
On 10/05/07, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. "Python" is not a good name for this project because "Apache Python"
will just be too confusing and probably infringes on a PSF trademark. So
if you have any creative suggestions, send them in, don't b
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:46:12 +1000
Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that the current 2.2.x code calls dbd_setup() only for
> global server, therefore causing all other VHs to have things
> uninitialised. If DBDPersist is On and dbd_setup_lock() is attempted,
> mutex doesn'
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 17:01 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> I don't think this applies to trunk. The trunk uses configuration groups
> and then applies dbd_setup to all of them.
Looks like r503931 was where those configuration groups were introduced.
This was the text associated with the commit:
-
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 08:20 +0200, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> As far as I understand your problem description the bug is only in 2.2.x and
> not in
> trunk. So could you please give a pointer to the revision(s) in trunk that
> fixed this?
> This can be considered for backport then. If this
15 matches
Mail list logo
