On 5/9/2011 3:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 5/8/2011 2:24 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> Candidate binaries are available from http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ -
>> these do not yet constitute ASF releases. Win32 specific artifacts
>> (x86 binary distribution) will follow shortly; not
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> a potential concern is that by doing it that way (really, that's the
> only way httpd can help out, whether the include of third-party code
> is in ap_hooks.h or elsewhere) the provider of the probe macros is "on
> the hook" to handle absolutel
On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 02:24 -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Candidate binaries are available from http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ -
> these do not yet constitute ASF releases. Win32 specific artifacts
> (x86 binary distribution) will follow shortly; note that -win32-src.zip
> is generated f
On 5/8/2011 2:24 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Candidate binaries are available from http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ -
> these do not yet constitute ASF releases. Win32 specific artifacts
> (x86 binary distribution) will follow shortly; note that -win32-src.zip
> is generated from unix as a t
I plan on doing a T&R tomorrow...
I'm hoping to T&R tomorrow...
On May 9, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> Sounds good... I was planning on doing a T&R of 2.3.12 this week;
>> OK if we go with what's currently in place?
>
> I wouldn't call it a showstopper.
>
> When are you planning to T&R?
>
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 9, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
What is your thought on putting this in some private CPPFLAGS so
On May 9, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> On May 9, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>>
>>> What is your thought on putting this in some private CPPFLAGS so that
>>> third-party modules which create their own hooks are
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> What is your thought on putting this in some private CPPFLAGS so that
>> third-party modules which create their own hooks aren't affected by
>> default?
>>
>
> Makes sense...
maybe I c
Looks good.. OSX and Fed14
+1
On May 8, 2011, at 3:24 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Candidate binaries are available from http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ -
> these do not yet constitute ASF releases. Win32 specific artifacts
> (x86 binary distribution) will follow shortly; note that -win32
On May 9, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> What is your thought on putting this in some private CPPFLAGS so that
> third-party modules which create their own hooks aren't affected by
> default?
>
Makes sense...
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:58 AM, wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: Mon May 9 15:58:10 2011
> New Revision: 1101077
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1101077&view=rev
> Log:
> Use AP_ instead of APR_ and move into the compile CPP
> flags
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in
> h
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 3:24 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Candidate binaries are available from http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ -
[+1] Release httpd 2.2.18 as GA
tested on Ubuntu 10.04 (32-bit)
source diffs with 2.2.17 look good
test diffs with 2.2.17 look good (worker MPM, bundled apr/ap
Hi lists,
Sorry for the noise and horrid manners, but I can't seem to find any
knowledgeable IPv6 people in my day-to-day life. I'm looking to pick
someone's brain about how to give access to "the rest of the internet"
to machines which natively only run an IPv6 stack and live in the global
IPv6
14 matches
Mail list logo
