On 5/17/2011 8:30 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> Looks ready for a ./build.sh and svn commit off the docs/ tree.
> may I ask you to do it?
Done, thanks for the updates!
On 5/17/2011 7:18 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
>
> [...] Since I see no make files but a few, what are your plans there?
Subversion and other projects generate makefile.in/makefile.win inputs from
master source lists. E.g. on apr, apr-util we have build.conf files (the
unfinished thought in my prio
Bill,
Am 16.05.2011 02:50, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 5/15/2011 11:50 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Am 16.05.2011 00:13, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 5/15/2011 9:18 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
any reason why you do no longer list the 2.0.x win32 binaries there?
I don't recall removing these
Hello folks,
I promised this long ago and I think I forgot to follow up. Here is the Windows
build stuff for this module.
Cheers,
Gregg
mod_authn_socache_winbuild.diff
Description: Binary data
Ugh, me again, forgot to leave my say on this.
Call me whatever, I prefer the IDE for a few reasons;
It's simpler to rebuild one project if need be, faster too.
It helps delay the onset of Carpal Tunnel.
Maybe not great reasons, but frankly it's easier for noobs too. However you do
it, please k
Jorge,
That's hard to measure considering how many people supply x64 builds of Apache
on Win. I only know of 3.
I can tell you Apache Haus' stats for 2.2.17
x64: 1864
x86: 1471
x64 overtook x86 the first x64 build that was offered. I'd love to see your
kind of numbers at AH.
Gregg
-Origi
Bill,
Yes there is a PR 47418 by Jorge for it. I've flagged as depending on 49997.
Gregg
-Original Message-
From: "William A. Rowe Jr."
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:19:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Windows Laundry List
About the patch, yes this should go in. I'm busy fo
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> About the patch, yes this should go in. I'm busy for a day or few
> but flagged your message to come back to it, if there is a bugzilla
> incident please tag it 'depends on' PR 49997.
>
> On 5/17/2011 11:10 AM, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
>
About the patch, yes this should go in. I'm busy for a day or few
but flagged your message to come back to it, if there is a bugzilla
incident please tag it 'depends on' PR 49997.
On 5/17/2011 11:10 AM, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
>
> Do the argument from a few year back still hold for the ASF not
>
On May 14, 2011, at 6:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
> We should /not/ be halting a *beta* when one platform, one feature, or
> any other single documented issue has an issue. Versions and releases
> are cheap, release it and get on with the next beta :)
>
No one has suggested that...
I'm still all for this,
But do many people use a 64-bit variant of httpd it self? I've long
since switched to linux for both my server and my development
environment but still provide binaries I compile on my website. (If
I'm lazy I get about 2-3 mails per day asking for the newest release)
So her
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> This patch disables hook probes for our two hooks which don't have args:
>>
>
>> /* which gen? */
>>
>> ugly but effective
>>
>
> +1 (on both counts ;)
>
>
>>
>> I rehashed that
Hi,
this is the semi-annual ping to check whether I can find enough
support to get per request r->document_root implemented in 2.3.x.
The patch is attached at
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49705
And I am willing to update it to current 2.3.x if there is enough
interest. Or i
13 matches
Mail list logo
