What exactly do people want in a 1.4 and why is making that fit into 2.0
not an option?
So far I can recall seeing a few reasons why people aren't moving to 2.0.
1. they have no need to change, so they don't. Why would having a
1.4 then 2.0 will make them have a need to make two changes? If peo
(re. the poor quality cnet story that is just advertising, and the
corresponding slashdot post)
Yea... umh... some of their analysis is pretty poor. I didn't forward
this earlier as I assumed someone more involved in httpd devlopment right
now would.
But yes, there are some issues they point out
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Monday, November 25, 2002 12:21 AM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > OUTCH! The point to the 2.x history is that we DON'T lose the
> > history! I'm guessing I was one of only 5 committers with an rsync
> > of 1.2
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Alistair Young wrote:
> Hi all,
> Thanks to all those who replied but it seems that it's not possible to
> do what I need in Apache 1.3 -> I'll have to go to Apache 2.0 but
> unfortunately PHP isn't ready for that yet!
> It looks like Apache 1.3 reads a set amount from the cli
Prompted by a recent message about SERVER_NAME, I took a look at some of
the default error page SSIs. And they have '#echo encoding="none"
var="..."' sprinkled in all sorts of places.
Please, do NOT do this. The ONLY place to use encoding=none is
where you know the variable is being set by some
On 2 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Index: util_script.c
> ===
> RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/server/util_script.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.79
> retrieving revision 1.80
> diff -u -r1.79 -r1.80
> --- util_script.
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 04:26:22PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > aaa rewrite belongs in:
> >
> > 2.0: rbb, brianp, dreid, gstein, jim, rederpj, striker, trawick,
> > ianh, gs, bnicholes
> > 2.1: dpejesh, chris, aaron, hb
> >
> > If someone wou
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
> exactly,
> this talk of 2.1/branching etc is very premature.
> if you think your going to destablize the tree, then do your changes on
> a copy of the file.. and when your done just overwrite the old one.
In preference to doing that, just create a tempo
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:47:28AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > - As OtherBill pointed out, HEAD must remain 2.0.
>
> Maybe HEAD should be the development trunk, while we branch off
> minor (and patch) revisions for stabalization.
HEAD needs to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Someone could try adding the meta tag to the HTML output instead of
> on the content-type, but then they would have to check to see if this
> still reduces the cross-site scripting problems that Marc found earlier.
My recollection (I would have to ch
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
> Include is really only a convenience to the administrator. It can't be
> used for distributed management, because anyone with write access to one
> of these directories could easily crash the server at the next restart.
and that is different from havin
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Greg Ames wrote:
> There are lots of 416's in the logs this morning, more than I remember seeing
> before:
>
> [gregames@daedalus httpd-2.0.37dev]$ grep " 416 " /logs/www/weblog | wc -l
>12792
>
> ...but the vast majority of them are Win98 browsers trying to download zi
On Mon, 27 May 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 May 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > >- Having two different sets of arguments for httpd and apachectl is
> > >confusing and difficult to document
> >
> > How so? How is this different from syntax differences between any
> > other two
On Mon, 27 May 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 May 2002, Sascha Schumann wrote:
>
> > > -0.9. Whoever said we were deprecating them? I thought the plan was that
> > > apachectl would continue to accept 'start|stop|restart' and would pass
> > > them as 'httpd -k $ARGV' to Apache. Tha
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> pkill -HUP httpd would all fail if the binary isn't called httpd.
Erm... that isn't a bad thing.
Remember, because of the way bugzilla is configured, you can not assign
bugs to people unless you add bugs@ to the cc list.
If you do not add bugs@, then no one else sees any updates to the bug...
I went and made the fix for this bug.
On 1 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> DO NOT REPLY TO
On 27 Mar 2002, Raphael Amaury Jacquot wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-03-25 at 23:23, Marc Slemko wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Eli Marmor wrote:
> >
> > > And a yet another note:
> > >
> > > It is not a bug that "sometime" causes problems;
> >
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Eli Marmor wrote:
> And a yet another note:
>
> It is not a bug that "sometime" causes problems;
> It is a bug that causes mod_auth_digest to fail ALWAYS (when there are
> parameters, of course).
That is defined as "sometimes". And it is only IE with which it fails,
no?
>
It's out.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:06:46 -0800
From: Ory Segal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[E
On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
> +1. Will changing the default "owner" for all the components to this
> mailing list accomplish that?
Only if noone ever takes ownership of bugs.
What we really want is the same effect as the mailing list being on the
cc list for all bugs.
It would a
On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > But nice work, thanks! Could we simply auto-populate the subscriptions
> > from bugz, with a NICE NOTE first that this change is happening, and how
> > to unsubscribe? Or should we email-forward bugz reports to the bugs list,
> > and let folks u
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> Is it valid for Content-length to be returned from these types
> of requests? daedalus is showing it, and I'm seeing it in current CVS.
of course it is, that's the whole idea of a HEAD... to get the headers
that you would get if you did a GET.
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Brad Nicholes wrote:
> This patch adds the directives LogRotateDaily and LogRotateInterval
> to the mod_log_config modules. These directives allow all of the custom
> logs to be automatically rotated on either a daily basis or at a
> specific interval. This patch is ba
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Belen Leonardo Javier wrote:
> I cannot be able to debug modules under Linux, since when I should get into
> the new module, I get a reference to eval.c, line 88... it's driving me
> mad! I running Apache 1.3.23 on Linux 2.4 and the module is compiled as
> a DSO and I'm u
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> GNATS (bugs.apache.org), in short, sucks (that's an understatement).
> All I want is a usable web interface to manage our bugs. I have
> spent way too much time over the last few weeks fighting this
> horrible bug system and trying to clean up the
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 14:44:18 -0700
From: Peter Valchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: incorrect getopt(3) usage in apache
Index: os/netware/getopt.c
===
RCS file: /cvs
If I send:
Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1, utf-8;q=0.66, *;q=0.66
with no Accept-Language header, I get a page in french. That isn't right
is it?
This is what Mozilla generates for me if I go and remove the en-us
language from the list of languages.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Not so. If you know your site has this problem and you can't fix it for whatever
>reason,
> you can preemptively set MaxRequestsPerChild to 0 or some suitably high number to
>give the
> admin time to notice the problem when it occurs. It is wrong to w
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Isn't it time to drop TransferLog and CookieLog?
>
> We can accomplish the same by allowing that LogFormat provides the default
> for the CustomLog directive, in the absense of an optional [format] arg.
>
> And if we offer a built-in (or defaul
0800 (PST)
From: Marc Slemko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: the bunch of old bug reports that just came through...
are because, once in a while, gnats was just dropping an entry into a temp
directory and not processing it.
I had Brian install a script to put those back
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Joshua Slive wrote:
> In the interest of helping out mirrors, are there any objections to keeping
> only a single copy of the old releases, rather than both .gz and .Z. In
> other words, can I do
>
> cd /www/www.apache.org/dist/httpd/old/
> rm *.Z
> rm *.tar_Z.asc
> rm *.ta
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:59:33 +0900
From: Hye Shik Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Reporting on Patches of FreeBSD ports
Hello!
I'm FreeBSD port maintainer of Apache2.
I heard that some apache deve
(offtopic, but related...)
is "http://%77ww.apache.org/"; a valid URL refering to the same resource
that "http://www.apache.org/"; does?
RFC 2616 section 3.2.3 seems to imply that, for comparison purposes,
they are the same.
RFC 2396 on generic URIs defines "server" in a way that doesn't allow
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> Implementation Details:
>
> - Apache forms absolute paths for each of the above suexec pathnames,
>even if they are presented in a relative form.
>
> - The logpath and suexec docroot (not the main docroot) are passed as
>new parameters to th
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 08:44:40PM -0800, Marc Slemko wrote:
> > because we don't have a bug database that can support this in a
> > sufficient manner.
>
> Can we do this with Bugzilla? Pier?
bugzilla can deal with certain
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> How about we just put the known issues in the bug database? We already
> tell people to look there, and we can close them immediately, as fixed in
> CVS.
because we don't have a bug database that can support this in a
sufficient manner.
Release showstop
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Marc Slemko wrote:
> >
> > It is completely bogus to start adding support
> > programs to check every possible error condition
>
> Hardly what is happening here.
It is the start of a very ugly trend. How long wil
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Requesting this;
>
> POST /cgi-bin/printenv.pl HTTP/1.1
> Content-Length:80
> Host:localhost
>
> and stalling, I get a 5 minute pause, followed by;
>
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:55:02 GMT
> Server: Apache/2.0.27-dev (Win32) D
On 26 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> coar01/10/26 11:05:26
>
> Modified:src CHANGES
>src/support Makefile.tmpl
> Added: src/support checkgid.c
> Log:
> Some platforms varf on a setgid(-1) and hence httpd will fall
> over immediately a
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> And as for whether always adding a charset is appropriate
> or not -- that was decided, and not recently, as the answer
> to the cross-site-scripting issue. We provide a means of
> *always* specifying a charset, and the www.apache.org server
>
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > That's interesting, since http://www.apache.org/docs/ returns
> > Moved Permanantly.
> >
> > Looking at http://httpd.apache.org/docs/ which I believe you ment;
&
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> That's interesting, since http://www.apache.org/docs/ returns
> Moved Permanantly.
>
> Looking at http://httpd.apache.org/docs/ which I believe you ment;
> index.html.html bogusness has no associated charset, index.html.en
> returns iso-8859-1,
B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: "Andrei B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: apachectl script FIX
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Hello, Apache Team,
> >
> > The
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>Thank you for the feedback but I am still concerned about how
> this is going to work on NetWare. Here are the reasons why:
>
> 1) NetWare like Win32 and OS2, does not have a configure utility
> therefore config.layout will do us no good at all.
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 10:34:03PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > * On 2001-09-12 at 21:11,
> > Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
> > >
> > > This is why we have config.layout.
> >
> > It is not just -f, it is -d as
On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, Brian Pane wrote:
> On Linux, at least, it's a win. I did some experiments a few weeks ago
> and found that, after doing open and mmap on a file, it's faster to send
> it with sendfile than with write.
If you are going to use sendfile(), then mmap()ing the file to begin
with
On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
> Marc,
>
> Rather than continue this thread let's see if we can put this subject
> into the end zone.
There are numerous unresolved issues and unanswered questions that
have been brought up. The only way to get anywhere is to change them
from unre
On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
> Marc,
>
> >> It makes zero sense to rush into doing "something" just to do
> "something" without any clear concept of where it is going >> or what
> steps really need to be taken to get there.
>
> Here's a concept Save bandwidth. Here's anothe
On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 04:40:15AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I suggest (again) that the entire ZLIB source code package be IMMEDIATELY
> > added to the Apache source code tree. Like... TOMORROW.
Like, no. It makes zero sense to rush into
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 04:14:39PM -0600, Charles Randall wrote:
> > Using the prefork mpm on FreeBSD 4.2-R with a default installation
> > (./configure --prefix=/my/full/path -with-port=8080) a request for a
> > non-existant page (E.g., /bogus) ret
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> If httpd is configured with multiple listeners, S_L_U_A is irrelevant because you
>have to
> select() before calling accept(). And to the best of my knowledge, it is always bad
>to
> have multiple threads/processes block in select(), for all OS'.
Wel
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> recall that the current code *defaults* to NONE (basically, if no
> other method is compiled in) and will allow that option to be used
> (but will post a warning unless MULTITHREAD is defined). So we're
> even *safer* than the current such that if none
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > Marc Slemko wrote:
> > >
> > > So I don't see how "NONE" is viable on _ANY_ platform in the multiple
> > > listener case. It may seem to &quo
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Marc Slemko wrote:
> >
> > So I don't see how "NONE" is viable on _ANY_ platform in the multiple
> > listener case. It may seem to "mostly" work, but it is not reliable and
> > can not be permitt
On 29 Aug 2001, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 11:00 AM -0400 8/28/01, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > >
> > >HAVE_NONE_xxx means that you can turn the accept mutex into a no-op,
> > >even in the multiple-listener case. If we can play around with this
> > >on o
On 29 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> martin 01/08/29 06:32:07
>
> Modified:src CHANGES
>.Makefile.tmpl config.layout configure
>conf highperformance.conf-dist httpd.conf-dist
> httpd.conf-dist-nw httpd.conf-
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I have a two simple questions. One; does assbackwards simply refer to HTTP/0.9?
yes.
>
> Two; why are we trying to support HTTP/0.9 in the year 2001? How many pre HTTP/1.0
> clients are out there to support?
because we can?
On 27 Aug 2001, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Marc Slemko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Erm... why would we be unable to read the data?
> >
> > I have the exact same CGI. If I have it output, for example, 6k of data
> > there is never a content-length. If I
On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Sunday 26 August 2001 15:53, Marc Slemko wrote:
> > if I have a CGI that generates less than 8k of output, the content length
> > doesn't get set.
> >
> > If it generates between 8k and 32k or something like that, it d
if I have a CGI that generates less than 8k of output, the content length
doesn't get set.
If it generates between 8k and 32k or something like that, it does.
is this a known bug?
On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Marc Slemko wrote:
>
> > hang on, is this about keepalives or chunked encoding?
>
> both.
>
> the check always fails because ap_content_length_filter has set content
> length before ap_set_keepaliv
On 26 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> dougm 01/08/26 11:57:16
>
> Modified:modules/http http_protocol.c
> Log:
> ap_content_length_filter has already set Content-Length
> before ap_set_keepalive is called. need to remove this check
> in order for keepalives to work.
han
On 26 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> wrowe 01/08/25 22:15:09
>
> Modified:include ap_mmn.h
> Log:
> That last round calls for a bump.
>
> bump.
>
> Revision ChangesPath
> 1.19 +2 -1 httpd-2.0/include/ap_mmn.h
In 1.3, dependencies were generat
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> chunked encoding never gets turned on because by the time
> ap_set_keepalive() is called, ap_content_length_filter has set
> r->headers_out.Content-Length
> with this patch chunked encoding works fine, but i'm not sure if it is
> the correct fix.
So
open("/usr/local/apache2/error/HTTP_NOT_FOUND.html.var",0,0666) = 9 (0x9)
read(0x9,0xbfbfb1f0,0x1) = 1 (0x1)
read(0x9,0xbfbfb1f1,0x1) = 1 (0x1)
read(0x9,0xbfbfb1f2,0x1) = 1 (0x1)
read(0x9,0xbfbfb1f3,0x1)
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > Some weirdnesses here in the headers:
> >
> > > Precedence: bulk
> >
> > Can we change the precedence to 'list' instead of 'bulk', BTW?
> > If not 'first-class'?
>
> I'm not sure what the ramifi
On 22 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> gregames01/08/22 16:12:24
>
> Modified:modules/filters mod_include.c
> Log:
> get rid of nuisance log messages due to subrequests failing with EPIPE
Erm... forgive me if I haven't followed any discussion on this...
but why are subrequests
67 matches
Mail list logo
