On 01.03.2011 18:25, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The Apache httpd 2.3.11-beta test tarballs are available at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.11-beta.
This is our first Beta release; Based on the feedback and result
from this Beta, the hope is to pus
On 03/03/2011 02:19 AM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Am 03.03.2011 01:46, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
>> On 3/2/2011 5:54 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>>> 2. change to 'if !defined(NETWARE)' in core.c
>>
>> and !WIN32, of course. This seems simplest, it is just 2.0.
> 2.2 you mean?
> k, do we agree that
Am 03.03.2011 02:45, schrieb NormW:
On 3/03/2011 12:19 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Am 03.03.2011 01:46, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 3/2/2011 5:54 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
2. change to 'if !defined(NETWARE)' in core.c
and !WIN32, of course. This seems simplest, it is just 2.0.
2.2 you mean?
On 3/03/2011 12:19 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Am 03.03.2011 01:46, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 3/2/2011 5:54 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
2. change to 'if !defined(NETWARE)' in core.c
and !WIN32, of course. This seems simplest, it is just 2.0.
2.2 you mean?
k, do we agree that I just fix, or d
- Original Message -
> The Apache httpd 2.3.11-beta test tarballs are available at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.11-beta.
>
> This is our first Beta release; Based on the feedback and result
> from this Beta, the hope is to pu
Am 03.03.2011 01:46, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 3/2/2011 5:54 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
2. change to 'if !defined(NETWARE)' in core.c
and !WIN32, of course. This seems simplest, it is just 2.0.
2.2 you mean?
k, do we agree that I just fix, or do we need a STATUS proposal with vote?
Gün.
On 3/2/2011 5:54 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> 2. change to 'if !defined(NETWARE)' in core.c
and !WIN32, of course. This seems simplest, it is just 2.0.
>> The Apache httpd 2.3.11-beta test tarballs are available at:
FYI t/apache/if_sections blew up when I didn't have proxy configured
(fat-fingered configure line)
Hi,
the backport below is in this form invalid ...
Am 14.02.2011 21:18, schrieb traw...@apache.org:
Author: trawick
Date: Mon Feb 14 20:18:20 2011
New Revision: 1070639
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1070639&view=rev
Log:
backport from trunk r1033519:
*) suEXEC: Add Suexec directive to
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:25:23 -0500
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The Apache httpd 2.3.11-beta test tarballs are available at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.11-beta.
>
> This is our first Beta release; Based on the feedback and result
> from th
On Mar 2, 2011, at 2:31 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 3/2/2011 11:56 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> A current problem with balancers, even without the newer "change
>> lbprovider" and/or "add new worker" stuff is that if a worker
>> goes away and comes back, it takes some time for the lbmethod
On 3/2/2011 11:56 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> A current problem with balancers, even without the newer "change
> lbprovider" and/or "add new worker" stuff is that if a worker
> goes away and comes back, it takes some time for the lbmethod
> to get back into sync... basically, even though we know we
A current problem with balancers, even without the newer "change
lbprovider" and/or "add new worker" stuff is that if a worker
goes away and comes back, it takes some time for the lbmethod
to get back into sync... basically, even though we know we
should reset or age the load specifics, we don't.
On Mar 1, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The Apache httpd 2.3.11-beta test tarballs are available at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.11-beta.
>
> This is our first Beta release; Based on the feedback and result
> from this Be
2011/3/1 Ted Zlatanov :
> Sorry if this has been discussed before. I couldn't find past mentions
> after searching the archives. If there's a better way than what I'm
> suggesting, please let me know.
>
> In addition to the user name I need the LDAP DN of the user in the
> custom log. That's ava
Hi Ted,
Am 01.03.2011 21:06, schrieb Ted Zlatanov:
Sorry if this has been discussed before. I couldn't find past mentions
after searching the archives. If there's a better way than what I'm
suggesting, please let me know.
In addition to the user name I need the LDAP DN of the user in the
custo
16 matches
Mail list logo
