STATUS to reflect
these 2 potential patches.
PLEASE look these over! I would still like to get a
1.3 release out soon. My expectation is that we
will toss 1.3.30...
Suggested patch:
Index: src/ApacheCore.def
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/apache
(removing [EMAIL PROTECTED]; no need to discuss there)
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Suggested patch:
Index: src/main/http_core.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/apache-1.3/src/main/http_core.c,v
retrieving revision 1.332
diff -u -u -r1.332
Jim Jagielski wrote:
At:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Works great on SCO OpenServer 5.0.7 and UnixWare 7.1.3.
Kean
]
Subject
Please respond to Apache 1.3.30 release candidate
devtarball available for testing
At 12:33 PM 4/12/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Any comments on the 1.3.30 release candidate tarball?
The mod_rewrite.dsw was patched to find the ws2_32.lib required
when we modified rewrite. Unfortunately, the .mak file was not
updated at the same time. IDE builds (what I tested a week ago)
work
be
minimal and limited to Win people.
On Apr 12, 2004, at 3:06 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 12:33 PM 4/12/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Any comments on the 1.3.30 release candidate tarball?
The mod_rewrite.dsw was patched to find the ws2_32.lib required
when we modified rewrite. Unfortunately
If you are going to retag, can you also include the
htdocs/manual/netware.html patch (r1.9) that I committed last week.
This doc change describes the new Netware makefiles that made it into
1.3.30, but the doc didn't.
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|__ Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 02:48:45PM -0400:
Please check it out in anticipation for a release
tomorrow or so.
Works well on;
- Red Hat Linux 7.2, 7.3, 8.0, 9.0
- Fedora Core 1 Linux
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1, 3.0
- Slackware Linux 8.1,
I've removed the last SHOWSTOPPER for the 1.3.30 release.
I think we're ready for 1.3.30... anyone disagree?
Whatever uses ap_get_server_port() would use the Port number
included in the Host: header. This includes mod_vhost_alias,
mod_proxy, mod_rewrite and Apache itself when it creates self-
referential URLs (hence UseCanonicalName).
Note that it's ONLY when UseCanonicalName is Off that this is
an
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Ugg... fix_hostname() in 1.3.30-dev (and previous) are
broken such that it does *not* update parsed_uri with
the port and port_str value from the Host header.
This means that with a request like:
% telnet localhost
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: foo
Now that 2.0.49 is out is there an estimated time of arrival for 1.3.30?
--
Jess Holle
Ugg... fix_hostname() in 1.3.30-dev (and previous) are
broken such that it does *not* update parsed_uri with
the port and port_str value from the Host header.
This means that with a request like:
% telnet localhost
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: foo:
that the '' port value from
Ugg... fix_hostname() in 1.3.30-dev (and previous) are
broken such that it does *not* update parsed_uri with
the port and port_str value from the Host header.
This means that with a request like:
% telnet localhost
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: foo:
that the '' port value from
Jim Jagielski wrote:
There are a few open patches floating about, but in general I think
we're close to a point where we should seriously consider 1.3.30.
I volunteer to be RM... I'd like to shoot for mid-late next
week for a release.
Comments?
sounds reasonable
here's a simple patch I just saw
There are a few open patches floating about, but in general I think
we're close to a point where we should seriously consider 1.3.30.
I volunteer to be RM... I'd like to shoot for mid-late next
week for a release.
Comments
Jim Jagielski wrote:
There are a few open patches floating about, but in general I think
we're close to a point where we should seriously consider 1.3.30.
I volunteer to be RM... I'd like to shoot for mid-late next
week for a release.
Comments?
I just added a simple thing to STATUS
1.3.30.
I volunteer to be RM... I'd like to shoot for mid-late next
week for a release.
Comments?
I'd like to see this patch in 1.3.30:
+++ src/main/http_protocol.c 2004-02-27 20:54:48.0 -0800
@@ -1001,7 +976,7 @@
*/
ap_bsetflag(conn-client, B_SAFEREAD, 1);
while ((len
Ben Laurie wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish.
one question: who would support putting the 1.3 versions of
mod_backtrace and mod_whatkilledus in experimental?
+1.
+1
Greg
Ben Laurie wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish.
Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
one question: who would support putting the 1.3 versions
On Feb 18, 2004, at 1:19 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish.
Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
one question: who would support putting the 1.3 versions
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish.
Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish.
Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
+1
Bill
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish.
Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49
aswell?
Sander
We have a showstopper, don't we?
On Feb 18, 2004, at 12:34 PM, Sander Striker wrote:
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish.
Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
also to coincide with the changeover to AL
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Sander Striker wrote:
In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49
aswell?
+1, but let's make sure to get the mod_usertrack fix finally committed.
Jim already committed it to 1.3.x as far as I know, and there's no reason
not to commit it to 2.0.x and 2.1.x except
, all, for helping fix this bug.
Cheers,
-Manni
-Original Message-
From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Sander Striker wrote
+1
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:34:44 AM
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30
Jim,
Now I understand. Thanks to you and Cliff for helping stomp this bug!
-Manni
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Manni,
What I
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish.
Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
one question: who would support putting the 1.3 versions of
mod_backtrace
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-18 15:45]:
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish.
Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
I have hughe problems with the new license.
What exactly is the point
On Feb 18, 2004, at 6:57 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
I have hughe problems with the new license.
Sorry to hear that; a large number of people both inside and outside
of the foundation worked very hard on the new license. Some of us
are convinced that is a substantial improvement.
What exactly is
Jeff Trawick wrote:
The buglet was that prctl() was issued always when available, when goal
(to be consistent with httpd 2.x) was to only issue it if admin has
coded CoreDumpDirectory.
+1 - reviewed and tested.
Greg
Jeff Trawick wrote:
The buglet was that prctl() was issued always when available, when goal
(to be consistent with httpd 2.x) was to only issue it if admin has
coded CoreDumpDirectory. The buglet was due to a misunderstanding in
the use of ap_coredump_dir[].
ap_coredump_dir_configured is not
The buglet was that prctl() was issued always when available, when goal (to be
consistent with httpd 2.x) was to only issue it if admin has coded
CoreDumpDirectory. The buglet was due to a misunderstanding in the use of
ap_coredump_dir[].
ap_coredump_dir_configured is not considered part of
35 matches
Mail list logo
