On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 08:51 AM, Farheen Jafri wrote:
apxs -L /usr/include/c++/ -L
/usr/include/c++/3.2/i386-redhat-linux/ -I/usr/lib/ -i
-c mod_replace.cpp
Hi Farheen -
1) what version of apache?
2) are any of your symbols defined in the so (use 'nm' and grep for
them)?
3) is your code d
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 05:20 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh,,, wrote:
Can you just confirm it's listening in v6 only ? the output of
"netstat -an | grep LISTEN" (Darwin has netstat and grep, right?)
should be enough.
heh. very funny:
% netstat -an | grep LISTEN
tcp46 0 0 *.80
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 03:55 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh,,, wrote:
Patch attached. Since I havnt got a DARWIN machine to test on I
can't confirm it works, but it should. It works on Linux anyway
(not that it needs to).
Darwin might need some slightly different sa.[members] set to make
getnamei
--On Wednesday, August 13, 2003 17:13:33 -0700 Justin Erenkrantz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just committed fixes to sync up the other way (NULL returns) and
added
back the 'retry' logic if we have IPv6-enabled, but not configured
(but
in a different way than before).
Hey Justin -
I'm still
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 01:06 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh,,, wrote:
.. or similar. The darwin one is complicated, but I know of at least
3 people running Apache on Darwin for months, all they've been doing
is changing v6_broken to 0 in the apr configure script ;)
Yup.. that worked. make that 4
>-- Original Message --
>From: Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Nonetheless, I'd like to know who the person(s) are that are behind the
>statement in the STATUS file so that I can find out what it is (exactly)
>that they mean and what (if any) history there is to the idea. "session
>cache store sh
As a side note, check the archives, this conversation has happened many
times before.
sterling
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:44:26 -0700
>From: Chris Monson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Contribution and Accepted Pra
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:59:41 -0500 (EST)
>From: Cliff Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>I'm still unclear why this requires a full-blown regex. Isn't all we
>really need to do to loop over the delimiters (semicolon and comma),
>remove whitespac
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:39:05 +0100 (CET)
>From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: mod_authn_mysql
>
>Any one any objections to me adding that into the 2.0 tree as soon as we
>have a few +1's. I can kind of use it in the regr
Hi -
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:45:33 -0700
>From: "Brad Nicholes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Standarizing mod_auth_ldap across LDAP SDKs...
>
>This model was already supported in mod_auth_ldap
Hi Brad -
the only suggestion I would have is to try to support SOME backward compatibility
(e.g. if StartTLS directive is used switch the url to ldaps or something
like that).
Looks like great progress for the software, though - I too would like to
see it committed.
sterling
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Martin Kutschker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: mod_authn_mysql
>Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:08:02 +0100 (MET)
>
>> Looking at existing 1,3 modules for sybase, postgress, msql and mysql
>> I see that we essentially
Hi -
This is more of a question for the users list, not the dev list, but i'll
answer below:
>-- Original Message --
>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:15:56 +0100
>From: Estrade Matthieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>[Wed Jan 29 19:02:00 2003] [error] [client 192.168.100.3] (9)Bad file
>descriptor: Could not ope
Not using basic authentication. basic auth IS the browser dialogue based
authentication. you will need to write your own auth module to accept the
username and password from the vars.
sterling
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: "Laxmikanth M.S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To:
I know Gerald Richter has a mod_perl module that does what you are describing.
might be worth a peek.
perldoc Apache::ImageMagick
sterling
you would not want to modify the core for this. You would want to use optional
functions and add an optional function to mod_cgi to register for it. Then
have mod_cgi notify all registered methods of any stderr data.
sterling
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RFC on
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 13:22:20 -0500
>From: Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Apache Developers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: modification!
>
>
>not acked. he seems to be saying that the 2.0 msi should
>be renamed 1.3 ..?
>-
note as i said in the original email, the problem was that mod_auth
was enabled, not a problem with auth_ldap.
sterling
On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 05:19 PM, Estrade Matthieu wrote:
Hi,
I finally made mod_auth_ldap work.
First, basic authentication:
AuthName auth
AuthType Basic
Then
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:07:30 +0200
>From: Estrade Matthieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: mod_auth_ldap
>
>
>John K. Sterling wrote:
>
>>try disabling mod_auth.
&g
try disabling mod_auth.
sterling
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:33:26 +0200
>From: Estrade Matthieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: mod_auth_ldap
>
>
>Hi,
>
>I am using apache 2.0 + proxy + mod_auth_ldap
>
>i have this error i
My answer below still explains your situation. There is not way to
'restrict' requires. Each module has access to the SAME requires for a
given location. If no modules are authoritative, you probably will get
INTERNAL_SERVER_ERRORS for all unauthorized requests, right?
sterling
On Wednesda
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:27:18 +0200
>From: Xavier MACHENAUD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: ability to restrict scope of require directive to a single module
Hi,
>
>I'm facing the following problem :
>I'm using 2 auth mo
On Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at 08:07 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
>
>
>
> require valid-user
>
>
>
>
> require valid-user
>
>
> This has the effect of leaving GET unrestricted, according to the bug
> report. Is this correct behavior? It seems like, since the other
> methods
> are not cha
>-- Original Message --
>Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:19:53 -0700
>From: Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: auth stuff still broken
>
>
>But since our running of auth hooks comes from server/, then this stuff
>could prolly go there as well. IMO, it sucks that our "core" server knows
>about
>-- Original Message --
>Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:26:02 -0700
>From: Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: auth stuff still broken
>
>
>+1 for the core, or at least a module that's always statically compiled
>(which is easy to do with the .m4 macros we have).
Yup - I suppose if we do
On Wednesday, September 11, 2002, at 04:55 PM, Jon Travis wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I cc'd the dev@ lists, since the original proposition was made there,
> and the public following the discussion should know the resolution.
>
> My comments at the end.
to Rasmus' point - maybe the group should have jus
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:57:33 -0700
>From: Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: resolving aaa related symbol in auth_provider.c
>
>
>On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 09:57:5
Hi -
this brings up an issue I noticed while implementing the AddAuthProvider
scheme (to allow multiple providers per location):
Don't you think the register method should be implemented as an optional
function? This would elminate these linking issues but it would also
allow third party mod
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Scott Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Friday, September 6, 2002, at 04:53 PM, Andy Cutright wrote:
> hi,
>
> so could you possibly speak those unspeakable hacks you've made to
> apache to run c++ modules on hp? we're trying to get a c++ module
> linked into 2.0.39. any help would be appreciated. we can take this
> particular a
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:24:01 +0200
>From: Peter Van Biesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
>
>
>Point taken. I didn't think about that. The problem is that it is not at
>all c
Here we go.
kitchen sink come on - we let a module into experimental (auth_ldap) and
suddenly experimental will become the CPAN of apache.
I think this is a silly idea personally. More cruft to maintain and to
hold back releases, etc. etc. etc. Until Aaron's (et. al) idea of a module
regis
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:49:14 -0700
>From: Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: authn/authz split
>Do you think this new feature is well-defined enough to warrant
>a new revision number? I'd like to see us
If we do wait for 2.1, it would give us the opportunity to collaborate and
make this really clean..you could just create a repository for the new
auth modules (even on sourceforge or something) - assuming not too many
core changes are required.
sterling
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EM
Hmm -
My biggest concern here is that you are now adding another layer of
abstraction on the apache api. It seems nice in theory, but it is not
very extensible. If this were to be going in only for the simple auth
modules we currently support (which are almost never changed or
augmented) i
35 matches
Mail list logo
