httpd-test gives a really cryptic error message when LWP isn't
installed:
Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at
.../Apache-Test/lib/Apache/TestHarness.pm line 121.
Be nice if we could fix that. It seems that $_ is trounced by
$self-run_t(). My perl-fu doesn't have an
I received the following error on my server and was trying to figure
out how to correct it:
/usr/local/apache2/bin/httpd: relocation error:
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/APR/
Request/Apache2/Apache2.so: undefined symbol: apreq_handle_apache2
What does it
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 06:47:46PM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/30/2005 06:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I thought you needed RH-specific patches - that is, no regular
(i.e. GNU-stock) version of GDB will support PIE. -- justin
There's nothing Red Hat specific about PIE, it's all
On 11/01/2005 12:53 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 06:47:46PM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
[..cut..]
which compiled fine on RHEL 3. But debugging still does not work :-(.
I guess the problem now is that my kernel does not give the needed support to
gdb as I found
something
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 01:05:09PM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Do you think I should add an hint to the debugging page that RHEL3 +
--enable-pie + gdb does
not work out of the box?
I'll add some text, good idea.
joe
I wanted to avoid making string copies when possible. Plus, we
don't want to lowercase the URL, since that means /Foo/bar
would be the same as /FOO/Bar, which is wrong :)
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/31/2005 05:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Mon Oct 31 08:31:29 2005
Since this happens for each request, doing a string copy seems
wasteful to me; it's extra overhead that is avoided with the
current impl. Instead, we have an extra assignment and
check, which is less expensive.
I originally toyed with doing the string copy, but instead
opted for a more pointer
On 11/01/2005 02:27 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Since this happens for each request, doing a string copy seems
wasteful to me; it's extra overhead that is avoided with the
current impl. Instead, we have an extra assignment and
check, which is less expensive.
This is fine. My other approach was
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 11/01/2005 02:27 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Since this happens for each request, doing a string copy seems
wasteful to me; it's extra overhead that is avoided with the
current impl. Instead, we have an extra assignment and
check, which is less expensive.
This
On 11/01/2005 02:58 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[..cut..]
Certainly strncmp is quicker, since strncasecmp does an auto
tolower on each char. But we are doing that in both cases,
whether we're tolower'ing the string first, or whether we're
doing it at comparison time. So we're not saving
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Certainly strncmp is quicker, since strncasecmp does an auto
tolower on each char. But we are doing that in both cases,
whether we're tolower'ing the string first, or whether we're
doing it at comparison time. So we're not saving anything
really there.
c = ap_strchr_c(url, ':');
if (c == NULL || c[1] != '/' || c[2] != '/' || c[3] == '\0')
return NULL;
BTW, unless url is somehow limited to http and ftp, the above
is bad code. The proxy should be able to handle arbitrary
schemes (eventually), which means requiring scheme://host
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
c = ap_strchr_c(url, ':');
if (c == NULL || c[1] != '/' || c[2] != '/' || c[3] == '\0')
return NULL;
BTW, unless url is somehow limited to http and ftp, the above
is bad code. The proxy should be able to handle arbitrary
schemes (eventually),
Ruediger, would the below appease your sensibilities :)
Index: modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
===
--- modules/proxy/proxy_util.c(revision 329779)
+++ modules/proxy/proxy_util.c(working copy)
@@ -1217,13 +1217,33 @@
int
proxy_http.c:966
/* XXX: @@@ FIXME: Proxy-Authorization should *only* be
* suppressed if THIS server requested the authentication,
* not when a frontend proxy requested it!
*
* The solution to this problem is probably to strip out
* the Proxy-Authorisation header in the authorisation
* code
On 11/01/2005 04:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ruediger, would the below appease your sensibilities :)
Yes, it does. I am sorry. I guess I was a little too persistent in
this discussion about this patch of comparable limited influence.
I did not mean to step on your toes and nerves :-).
söndagen den 30 oktober 2005 05.09 skrev Paul Querna:
2.1.9-Beta is available from:
http://people.apache.org/~pquerna/dev/httpd-2.1.9/
Please test and vote on releasing 2.1.9 as BETA.
As a reminder, if you know of any issues you consider a SHOW STOPPER for
a 2.2.0 stable release, please add
+1 NetWare
Brad
On 10/29/2005 at 10:09:46 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.1.9-Beta is available from:
http://people.apache.org/~pquerna/dev/httpd-2.1.9/
Please test and vote on releasing 2.1.9 as BETA.
As a reminder, if you know of any issues you consider a
Title: Message
I ran into an
authentication problem in Apache 2.0.55. I'm trying to use the require
ldap-attribute directive and I'm getting an unknown directive error. If I
load mod_auth *after* mod_auth_ldap in the conf file, I'm able to authenticate
just fine. Is it a bug that mod_auth
Need to set AuthAuthoritative OFF so that mod_auth allows the
authorization to continue. The default is ON.
Brad
On 11/1/2005 at 3:09:23 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I ran into an authentication problem in Apache 2.0.55. I'm trying
to
use the require
On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 09:09:46PM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
2.1.9-Beta is available from:
http://people.apache.org/~pquerna/dev/httpd-2.1.9/
Please test and vote on releasing 2.1.9 as BETA.
+1 for beta.
Passes httpd-test on Ubuntu breezy/ppc. -- justin
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 10:14:29AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
They persist on /trunk/ if anyone wants to revisit them. In the interim,
they can simply be blasted on /branches/2.1.x/ - no?
Yes, that is the plan I think we agreed on. -- justin
22 matches
Mail list logo
