Testing as we speak... will commit if all OK :)
On Jul 15, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Stefan Eissing stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de
wrote:
...got the test framework to PASS on my OS X against httpd/trunk built.
I added more description of what I found in the README and checked that in. I
have
Thanks, Jim!
Am 16.07.2015 um 17:22 schrieb Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com:
Testing as we speak... will commit if all OK :)
On Jul 15, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Stefan Eissing stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de
wrote:
...got the test framework to PASS on my OS X against httpd/trunk built.
I
...got the test framework to PASS on my OS X against httpd/trunk built.
I added more description of what I found in the README and checked that in. I
have the attached patch to the test code itself, which I will not just dump on
you. I think the changes are ok, but will wait for some feedback.
After making the modifications described in the last email I sent
(namely, changed APR_HAVE_APR_ICONV back to APR_HAS_APR_ICONV in xlate.c),
I still had to copy several library and include files manually, some of
which I imported from my former build of flood and its dependencies about
a year ago,
Attached are the two files of the diffs, done with the u3 option. The
files in the flood-1.1 directory in this case are the originals and the
current directory contains the modified files.
I am providing a heads-up that I am experiencing issues, specifically on
the Windows platform, likely, with
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 14 October 2002 01:05
At 05:33 PM 10/13/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 5:15 PM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You haven't read a single email on this thread. The ENTIRE POINT
of
Jim Jagielski wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Branch 2.1 now? Only if we want to release the auth changes with all of
the upgrade issues of deprecating several released module. It doesn't matter
that only the names have changed, this is called deprecating a module,
and it
* Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I believe mod_authz_host is a much better name for mod_access. It
indicates that this module is only dealing with authorization based
on the remote host components. mod_access can mean lots of things,
but the fact that it was solely restricted to hostnames wasn't
André Malo wrote:
hmm. It can also deny/allow from all, env or subnet. So I guess,
mod_access is not really a bad name for the module, for (not serious)
example:
BrowserMatch MSIE dont-like-your-browser
Deny from env=dont-like-your-browser
if it had to be renamed, it might have been
At 05:30 AM 10/14/2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Branch 2.1 now? Only if we want to release the auth changes with all of
the upgrade issues of deprecating several released module. It doesn't matter
that only the names have
At 6:30 AM -0400 10/14/02, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Branch 2.1 now? Only if we want to release the auth changes with all of
the upgrade issues of deprecating several released module. It doesn't matter
that only the names have
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed.
That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and
doesn't really help developers.
Could you please
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed.
That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and
doesn't really help developers.
Could
At 04:05 PM 10/12/2002, Sander Striker wrote:
From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 October 2002 22:18
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
but I do have one change in mind that would
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 06:39:28AM -0400, Jeff Stuart wrote:
...
And now you want to create an Apache 2.1! Oy! Give the third party
developers a LITTLE bit of time to catch up. :)
The presence of an httpd 2.1 would have *ZERO* effect on them supporting a
2.0 release. If anything, it would
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:11:29PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
This is going to sound like a grumpy old man talking, but it's sounding
more and more like that 2.0 tree is considered, by many of the
developers, little more than a playground to hack around in. There
seems very little regard for
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Glenn wrote:
Glenn, thanks I had deleted Jim's message and I was re-creating it. You
made it so I didn't have to. :-)
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:11:29PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
This is going to sound like a grumpy old man talking, but it's sounding
more and more
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
2.1: async write support. And async read support, but
that may take a lot longer.
My belief is that you
Speaking as an end user, my problem is this:
Module development. PHP STILL does not officially support Apache 2. It
is still marked as experimental. Mod_perl still doesn't support Apache
2.
For me, these are the 2 third party modules I use. Yes, the onus DOES
rest on the developers of these
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:18:41PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I think there is a much easier way to satisfy everybody and stay in the
2.0 tree. The problem right now, is that the MMN isn't granular
enough. All we know, is that we broke binary compatibility. But, we
don't know
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In all of these cases, there was a developer or three, who created a CVS
tree either in their home directories, or in the main CVS area. They made
the major changes that they wanted to see made, and then they announced
the changes to the list, and invited people to
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 11:23:23PM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
2.1: async write support. And async read
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In all of these cases, there was a developer or three, who created a CVS
tree either in their home directories, or in the main CVS area. They made
the major changes that they wanted to see made, and then they announced
--On Friday, October 11, 2002 10:59 PM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm calling for a consensus opinion that the mod_auth changes
are simply too radical to introduce into a current version. We keep
treating the GA tree as a development branch. Many newcomers
(with
--On Friday, October 11, 2002 10:00 PM -0700 Brian Pane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
2.1: async write support. And async read support, but
that may take a lot longer.
My belief is
From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 October 2002 22:18
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
2.1: async write support. And
This is going to sound like a grumpy old man talking, but it's sounding
more and more like that 2.0 tree is considered, by many of the
developers, little more than a playground to hack around in. There
seems very little regard for end users or developers (API changes
with every release... yeah,
Anyway, I've most likely upset a few people, and I apologize in
advance. Just take these words from someone who *still* wants Apache
to achieve world domination :)
As a user I'll try to help achiving this goal ;)
About the specific issue: I (again as a user) like the idea of at least
putting
I finally figured out why a 2.1 branch bothers me so much. It isn't being
done the way it should be done. When apache-nspr was created, it wasn't
because there was a big discussion on-list and Dean decided to go do the
work. When apache-apr was created, it wasn't because Bill, Manoj, and I
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Friday, October 11, 2002 10:00 PM -0700 Brian Pane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
2.1: async write support. And async read
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the message above, I don't
think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that
we should take the time to finish 2.0 before moving on. Am I right in
interpreting it that way?
+++1
--
I am so sick of this conversation. 2.0 isn't done yet. It won't be done
until it is actually stable, and it isn't currently stable.
But, you have worn me down. Create a new fscking tree, populate it and
begin working on it. I will be finishing 2.0.
And yes, this is very harshly worded. We
At 11:21 PM 10/11/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am so sick of this conversation. 2.0 isn't done yet. It won't be done
until it is actually stable, and it isn't currently stable.
Fine. That's no reason to deprecate modules mid-stream. Was it a good
choice to rename mod_access to
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 11:21 PM 10/11/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am so sick of this conversation. 2.0 isn't done yet. It won't be done
until it is actually stable, and it isn't currently stable.
Fine. That's no reason to deprecate modules mid-stream.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Greg Stein wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:18:41PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I think there is a much easier way to satisfy everybody and stay in the
2.0 tree. The problem right now, is that the MMN isn't granular
enough. All we know, is that we broke
At 05:59 AM 10/13/2002, Greg Stein wrote:
The API *is* stable. The auth changes did nothing to the API except to
expand it a bit for *new* auth systems. Existing auth modules are
unaffected.
To the extent that they don't choose to use the new hooks, I believe
you are right. Certainly no MMN
At 11:40 AM 10/13/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the message above, I don't
think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that
we should take the time to finish 2.0 before moving on. Am I right in
interpreting it that way?
+++1
Then I want
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 06:39:28AM -0400, Jeff Stuart wrote:
Speaking as an end user, my problem is this:
Module development. PHP STILL does not officially support Apache 2. It
is still marked as experimental. Mod_perl still doesn't support Apache
2.
For me, these are the 2 third
aren't willing to do, is create a 2.1 tree
where everybody is supposed to do their work. There is a good chance that
the first few attempts at a 2.1 tree will fail and won't ever see the
light of day.
Please finally go back and read the messages where people have explained
why they don't want
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:59 AM -0700 Greg Stein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The API *is* stable. The auth changes did nothing to the API except
to expand it a bit for *new* auth systems. Existing auth modules are
unaffected.
Exactly - we only reorganized our aaa modules. No hooks or
At 04:36 PM 10/13/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:59 AM -0700 Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There were some directive changes, and certainly some different
modules to load, but nothing in the API department. Moreover, I
think we can deal with the directives
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 12:30 PM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far, Two Bills beg that we defer the auth reorg to 2.1. If I
hear three, I will consider it appropriate to veto the auth
reorganization for 2.0, until we start 2.1. The technical
justification
At 1:05 PM -0500 10/13/02, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Then I want to clarify ... you both object to the statement that developers
within HTTP should be free to work on what they want. Obviously, you are
both stating that we should not introduce 2.1 anytime real soon now.
In a nutshell, here
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 4:57 PM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I challenge you to do so; document both the old and the new so that
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/
clearly documents both the pre-new-auth and post-new-auth. I'm
presuming it can't be done
. I proposed we create 2.1 to incorporate auth.
Please finally go back and read the messages where people have explained
why they don't want to branch. Also, as for the auth stuff, you seem to
have completely ignored that Greg has offered a solution that might create
backwards compat for the users
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 5:15 PM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You haven't read a single email on this thread. The ENTIRE POINT
of this thread is that we have a radical change. Auth. Two Bills
and who knows whom all else may concur that we can't reasonably
--On Saturday, October 12, 2002 1:17 PM -0700 Aaron Bannert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That seems like a one-way street to me. How come it's ok to work on
the auth changes in 2.0 but it's not ok for others?
As Sander pointed out, the aaa changes were made first, then we voted
on where they
how many times you ask for 2.1 for the auth work,
the majority don't believe it warrants it.
Please finally go back and read the messages where people have explained
why they don't want to branch. Also, as for the auth stuff, you seem to
have completely ignored that Greg has offered a solution
to rearrange this further, by trying to prevent user
confusion. Of course, the few loud voices clearly aren't concerned about
the confusion factor in the first place, so I suppose such concerns won't halt
progress going forward.
Please finally go back and read the messages where people have explained
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
You haven't read a single email on this thread. The ENTIRE POINT of this
thread is that we have a radical change. Auth. Two Bills and who knows
whom all else may concur that we can't reasonably force this change
into 2.0 for docs and upgrade reasons.
So we
At 05:33 PM 10/13/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 5:15 PM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You haven't read a single email on this thread. The ENTIRE POINT
of this thread is that we have a radical change. Auth. Two Bills
and who knows whom all
* rbb wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I did
try to wrap my brain around documenting both pre and post auth in the
same /docs-2.0/ tree. It didn't make any sense. Perhaps someone
else can do better.
I will write the docs to handle both. I commit to having them
André Malo wrote:
I've tried to find a solution. It's certainly not complete, but a first
suggestion. I simply fetched the old module docs from the Attic, named
them obs_* and modified the xslt a little bit. As proposed by
Joshua they got the status Obsolete and also a large warning on top of
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed.
That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and
doesn't really help developers.
Could you please explain why breaking out the
At 08:36 PM 10/13/2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
André Malo wrote:
I've tried to find a solution. It's certainly not complete, but a first
suggestion. I simply fetched the old module docs from the Attic, named
them obs_* and modified the xslt a little bit. As proposed by
Joshua they got the status
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed.
That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and
doesn't really help
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 20:59, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Let's get cracking and we can have a 2.1 release out by year end,
depending on how far we go with changes in that version. Certainly
some of the file-based stuff can finally be separated out, even if not
as radically as GStein has
some of the file-based stuff can finally be separated out, even if not
as radically as GStein has proposed.
2.0 is good, and should continue to be bugfixed for many months.
But with 2.1, we can let people start adopting threaded modules
with worker and really let the 3rd party module authors
I've finally removed the apr_lock.h API from httpd and apr. I just
did another update on another machine to make sure I didn't miss
anything, but it's still possible that something's weird on a
platform that I don't [normally] use (netware and especialy win32).
I'll make note
Aaron Bannert wrote:
I've finally removed the apr_lock.h API from httpd and apr. I just
did another update on another machine to make sure I didn't miss
anything, but it's still possible that something's weird on a
platform that I don't [normally] use (netware and especialy win32).
Index
At 02:30 AM 4/9/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
Yup, I just posted something similiar to dev@apr. I was hoping that
one of the primary win32 developers could fix this up for us.
Done. But did you overlook something?
ssl_engine_mutex.c
D:\clean\httpd-2.0\modules\ssl\ssl_engine_mutex.c(72) : warning
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:56:25AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Done. But did you overlook something?
ssl_engine_mutex.c
D:\clean\httpd-2.0\modules\ssl\ssl_engine_mutex.c(72) : warning C4013:
'apr_lock_create' undefined; assuming extern returning int
62 matches
Mail list logo
