[RFC] Patch for mod_log_config to allow conditioning on status code

2004-10-15 Thread Luc Pardon
" patch (# 25014) also allows conditioning on status code(s), and there are three other contributed patches against mod_log_config waiting for a decision (# 28037, 29449 and 31311). I am willing to ensure compatibility with any or all of them if desired. Thanks for your time, Luc Pardon Skopos Consulting Belgium

Re: new/update mod_smtpd modules

2005-09-30 Thread Luc Pardon
> mod_smtpd_spamd.tar.gz > This is a module that sends the mail to spamd on the data_post hook. > Currently this module will bounce mail that is spam if it over the spam > threshold + reject_level. More features to come like adding headers, > rewriting subject lines, etc. Be careful

Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing

2005-10-10 Thread Luc Pardon
at the spec file is trying to accomplish (e.g. separate apr packages), I'd probably be able to fix it myself. Luc Pardon Skopos Consulting Belgium

[pre-release] rpm spec file (was: Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing)

2005-10-11 Thread Luc Pardon
he 2.0.55 tarball altogether (but that's frozen, right?). If you leave it in, changing the dependencies to properly require 0.9.7 (or newer?) is a trivial change to build/rpm/httpd.spec.in. So trivial in fact that I'm willing to provide a patch . Beyond that, any fix I can offer (e.g. to build separate apr packages) would only be tested on my systems. Luc Pardon

Re: [pre-release] rpm spec file (was: Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing)

2005-10-11 Thread Luc Pardon
Graham Leggett wrote: > > Luc Pardon said: > > > In that case the 2.0 httpd.spec files should either a) not require > > pre-installed apr packages and build apr as part of the httpd rpm, > > A definite -1 on this. If this were so, httpd could not coexist cleanly

Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing

2005-10-11 Thread Luc Pardon
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 11:38:03AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote: > > Anybody who wants to run the latest version of httpd on their RPM based > > server, > > How many people actually build RPM's is what I'm wondering, given the > errors that creep in in the releases,

Re: [vote] 2.2.0 tarballs

2005-11-29 Thread Luc Pardon
> Available from: > http://people.apache.org/~pquerna/dev/httpd-2.2.0/ > FWIW, the MIME types for the .md5 files seem to be wrong. The .bz2.md5 is served as "application/x-tar" and .gz.md5 is "application/x-gzip". Luc

Re: buildconf against installed APR

2005-12-02 Thread Luc Pardon
c file - especially if it comes with the product - should build everywhere, under any circumstances, not just on the author's machine (and please don't take this as a personal attack, it is not meant as one). Best regards, Luc Pardon

Re: buildconf against installed APR

2005-12-05 Thread Luc Pardon
ts, if only for the benefit (?) of whoever else is reading this thread (if anybody). Graham Leggett wrote: > > Luc Pardon wrote: > > >> Both apr and httpd ship with generic spec files included. The apr spec > >> files are designed so that you can install apr-0.x and a