I just submitted a patch to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for this bug (and have
attached it below)
sterling
Index: modules/http/mod_mime.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvspublic/httpd-2.0/modules/http/mod_mime.c,v
retrieving revision 1.55
diff -u
fyi:
After seeing doug's massive commits to the test suit yesterday && today, i
pulled downt the latest and was able to run gmake test and all tests
passed successfully -
sterling
Wed Apr 04 09:02:06 2001] [notice] Apache/2.0.16-dev
(Unix) mod_perl/1.99_01-dev Perl/v5.6
hopefully that gives you a place to start :)
sterling
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> hi guys...
>
> before I tread into new-httpd I just thought I'd ping the folks here with
> this:
>
> make[3]: Entering directory `/src/httpd-2.0/modules/http'
>
what platform?
what is in your config.nice?
i build from head regularly by checking out the trees (httpd-2.0,
srclib/apr srclib/apr-util)
gmake distclean
./buildconf
then running my config.nice script:
#! /bin/sh
#
# Created by configure
"./configure" \
"--prefix=/home/ster
actually - with recent changes to the apache core, that patch doesn't work
any more. we're working on a real fix - but in the mean time this one may
as well be removed.
sterling
_
Index: src/modules/perl/
redhat 7 looks good to me
current cvs of apache-1.3 and modperl
perl Makefile.PL EVERYTHING=1
[Fri Jan 26 12:34:25 2001] [notice] Apache/1.3.17-dev
(Unix) mod_perl/1.24_02-dev configured -- resuming normal operations
[sterling@thresher ~]$ perl -V
Summary of my perl5 (revision 5.0 version 6
runs fine on win2K (apache && modperl from current cvs) serves up
Apache::Status and a couple of other quick tests.
i'll check my redhat7 box next
sterling
Apache/1.3.17-dev (Win32) mod_perl/1.24_02-dev running...
Summary of my perl5 (revision 5 version 6 subversion 0)
i was able to pull from anoncvs:
cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/cvspublic co modperl
are you just trying to update?
sterling
Ken Williams wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not subscribed to this list (perhaps I should be), so sorry if this
> is already common knowledge. The s
FYI -
i pulled down the HEAD and tested it.
all worked great.
sterling
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> ok, i have done: perl -pi -e 's/\cM//' mod_perl.dsp
> and committed.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail
ded mod_perl.def to the MANIFEST, we don't want to include
> mod_perl.mak or do we?
i don't think so, just the dsp. right randy?
--sterling
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
how does this work for you?
this includes my change to INSTALL.win32
sterling
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> sweet, great work guys. the patch i have from randy seems to be truncated
> (the tarball with mod_perl.{dsp,mak.def} looks ok though. sterls can you
> send me the current patc
.
sterling
Randy Kobes wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "John K Sterling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Randy Kobes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 7:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] w
in a couple of days.
sterling
Randy Kobes wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "John K Sterling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Randy Kobes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 7:29 PM
> S
sounds great randy - do what you gotta do - i'll check it out on the other end
testing/proofing
sterling
Randy Kobes wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, John K Sterling wrote:
>
> > sorry it took so long to respond i had some 'real work' issues :) anyhoo, i am
> >
sounds great -
i'm sure doug wouldn't think of releaseing without it. Let me know if you
need anything else ... obviously i'll test/proof the final patch.
sterling
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Randy Kobes wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, John K Sterling wrote:
>
> > sorry i
eding edge. If the mod_perl
instructions so mod_perl.so everywhere then no-one should be confused... they
might double take, but they'll get over it fast.
So what'dya think randy - i'll go with your gut feel - and my patch will be
there when things are more comfortable.
st
ch has a bunch of new
support for win32 users anyway)?
sterling
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
yeah, its .so
take a look at the thread on new-httpd
basically on win32 it really don't matter none what the extension is
microsoft .ocx files and .cpl files are apparently just dlls with a different
suffix.
sterling
Gerald Richter wrote:
> > 2) only the ApacheModulePerl.d
file on win32 && unix, but
also better for docs.
sterling
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> good work, thanks sterls! what do people think about this general
> renaming of ApacheModuleFoo.dll to mod_foo.so in win32 land? good? bad?
> i guess this is the 2.0 convention, so we might as we
want to do it your own
way thats great. i just figured i'd get the ball rolling so to speak.
if this patch is acceptable, i will update the docs/test as well. i
thought it would be easies to review with minimal changes.
sterling
Index: Makefi
this, any objections?
sterling
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this would be to recognize we are building against
1.3.15 (once its released) and look in the Debug/Release directory in
that case.
this works though, feel free to modify it as necessary.
sterling
Index: Makefile.PL
===
RCS file:
Thats great --
for what its worth i tested this all out (eapi, spaces, apache_src) and it
built and ran for me no problem building against an eapi apache with
spaces in the path.
sterling
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Randy Kobes wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Randy Kob
23 matches
Mail list logo
