Re: resolver confusion (was Re: Tagged the trees)

2003-09-11 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
--On Tuesday, September 9, 2003 9:56 AM -0400 Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anybody have a firmer grasp on the semantic differences between old APR and new APR for hostname=NULL/family=APR_INET? If so, then perhaps server/config.c needs to be changed to just create an all-zeros

resolver confusion (was Re: Tagged the trees)

2003-09-09 Thread Jeff Trawick
Jeff Trawick wrote: Sander Striker wrote: I tagged the trees today, as STRIKER_2_0_48_PRE1 and STRIKER_2_1_0_PRE1 respectively. I'll try and get some tarballs up for testing, but for now, please test the tag. with recent apr resolver changes, Apache on AIX has picked up the old assert failure

Re: Tagged the trees

2003-09-09 Thread Jeff Trawick
Sander Striker wrote: I tagged the trees today, as STRIKER_2_0_48_PRE1 and STRIKER_2_1_0_PRE1 respectively. I'll try and get some tarballs up for testing, but for now, please test the tag. 2.0.48: needs apr/network_io/unix/sockaddr.c r1.43.2.1 to fix an init failure on AIX it would be nice

Re: Tagged the trees

2003-09-08 Thread Brian Havard
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:49:54 +0200, Sander Striker wrote: I tagged the trees today, as STRIKER_2_0_48_PRE1 and STRIKER_2_1_0_PRE1 respectively. I'll try and get some tarballs up for testing, but for now, please test the tag. Both are currently broken on OS/2 from the recent max mem free stuff

Re: Tagged the trees

2003-09-08 Thread Jeff Trawick
Sander Striker wrote: I tagged the trees today, as STRIKER_2_0_48_PRE1 and STRIKER_2_1_0_PRE1 respectively. I'll try and get some tarballs up for testing, but for now, please test the tag. with recent apr resolver changes, Apache on AIX has picked up the old assert failure that solaris-8

RE: Tagged the trees

2003-09-08 Thread Sander Striker
From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 8:27 PM On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Brian Havard wrote: Both are currently broken on OS/2 from the recent max mem free stuff. Looks like I have to turn on AP_MPM_WANT_SET_MAX_MEM_FREE for it to compile without error

Re: Tagged the trees

2003-09-08 Thread gregames
Sander Striker wrote: Hi, I tagged the trees today, as STRIKER_2_0_48_PRE1 and STRIKER_2_1_0_PRE1 respectively. I'll try and get some tarballs up for testing, but for now, please test the tag. Looks good on RedHat 9 with worker. I didn't do anything special to change thread libraries, so I

Re: Tagged the trees

2003-09-07 Thread André Malo
* Sander Striker wrote: I tagged the trees today, as STRIKER_2_0_48_PRE1 and STRIKER_2_1_0_PRE1 respectively. I'll try and get some tarballs up for testing, but for now, please test the tag. Win32: after fixing the aprutil.dsp typo, 2.0.48 compiles fine, but abs.exe (using openssl 0.9.7b

Tagged the trees

2003-09-06 Thread Sander Striker
Hi, I tagged the trees today, as STRIKER_2_0_48_PRE1 and STRIKER_2_1_0_PRE1 respectively. I'll try and get some tarballs up for testing, but for now, please test the tag. Thanks, Sander

Re: Tagged the trees

2003-09-06 Thread Brad Nicholes
provider of Net business solutions http://www.novell.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Saturday, September 06, 2003 1:49:54 AM Hi, I tagged the trees today, as STRIKER_2_0_48_PRE1 and STRIKER_2_1_0_PRE1 respectively. I'll try and get some tarballs up for testing, but for now, please test the tag. Thanks