According to Joe R. Jah:
> Sorry it took such a long time to respond, but I have been very busy
> lately. It is not easy to prove a negative; however, I have tried a few
> times to make 3.1.6 miss indexing files in stable snapshots of my site
> without success;)
>
> Here is a comparison of the l
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:35:53 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Gilles Detillieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Joe R. Jah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [htdig-dev] Re: URL Rewrite patch for 3.1.6 snapshots
&
According to Joe R. Jah:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:51:03 -0500 (CDT)
> > From: Gilles Detillieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Joe R. Jah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:51:03 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Gilles Detillieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Joe R. Jah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [htdig-dev] Re: URL Rewrite patch for 3.1.6 snapshot
According to Joe R. Jah:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Geoff Hutchison wrote:
> > Joe, what does the htdig/config.guess script report for a machine
> > triplet? This is what I'd need to take care of this for just BSDI.
>
> $ db/dist/config.guess
> i386-pc-bsdi4.2
>
> This may be too narrow. 4.1 and
At 10:58 PM -0700 10/3/01, Joe R. Jah wrote:
>$ db/dist/config.guess
>i386-pc-bsdi4.2
>
>This may be too narrow.
But I'd guess that:
*-*-bsdi*
Would be general enough for now?
-Geoff
___
htdig-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourc
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Geoff Hutchison wrote:
> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 23:06:32 -0500
> From: Geoff Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Gilles Detillieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [htdig-dev] Re: URL Rewrite patch for 3.1.6 snapshots
&g
At 9:51 AM -0500 10/3/01, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
>was a very simple one which doesn't seem to catch the subtle conflict
>on your BSDi 4.2 system.
Well, we could add different test conditions as well if Joe's
config.log file shows something interesting for the regex test. But
I'd hate to do an
According to Joe R. Jah:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
> > Shouldn't you be using the C library's regex code? Maybe the automatic
> > configure test isn't working correctly. Try the manual solution as
> > for older htdig versions, and see if that clears up some of these wierd
>
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:05:58 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Gilles Detillieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Joe R. Jah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [htdig-dev] Re: URL Rewrite patch for 3.1.6 snapshots
&
According to Joe R. Jah:
> Because of the size limitation of this mailing list the message was
> returned. I have placed the attachments on the patch site:
>
> ftp://ftp.ccsf.org/htdig-patches/Bench/
...
> Attached are basic block profiles of htdig-3.1.6-092301 with Armstrong
> patch and G
llieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Joe R. Jah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [htdig-dev] Re: URL Rewrite patch for 3.1.6 snapshots
>
> OK, let's get any 3.1.6 problems nailed down first, then when it's out we
> can hopefully figure
According to Joe R. Jah:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
> > I'd be very interested in seeing some profiling done with 3.1.6 on Joe's
> > system.
>
> I finally compiled and ran 3.2.0b4 by stopping profiling. For some reason
> profiling caused it to segfault. Any way, it took 30
t;,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [htdig-dev] Re: URL Rewrite patch for 3.1.6 snapshots
>
> Geoff Hutchison responded:
> > This tells me that on your system, the rx library is faster than the
> > system library regex calls. On the other hand, many people cheered
With the URL Rewrite patch in place, it was extremely easy to add
a similar rewriting capability into htsearch, as had been discussed
months ago, to give more flexibility in rewriting search result URLs than
url_part_aliases gives. Here's a patch that adds a search_rewrite_rules
attribute to htse
According to Joe R. Jah:
> The patch applies like a charm; the source compiles without a problem.
> Everything runs like a charm;) It seems to me that searching is
> noticeably faster too;) however, indexing takes three times as long
> as 3.1.6 with Armstrong patch:( I wonder why;-/
>
>
At 5:44 PM -0700 9/26/01, Joe R. Jah wrote:
>noticeably faster too;) however, indexing takes three times as long
>as 3.1.6 with Armstrong patch:( I wonder why;-/
This tells me that on your system, the rx library is faster than the
system library regex calls. On the other hand, many people cheere
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 17:08:12 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Gilles Detillieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Joe R. Jah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Geoff Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [htd
According to Joe R. Jah:
> You are right; I must have been in a big hurry;) I extracted the fresh
> source, patched and compiled it without a problem, but when I randig I
> got several hundreds of:
>
> DB2 problem...: missing or empty key value specified
>
> and an empty database;( Does
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:23:54 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Gilles Detillieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Geoff Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Joe R. Jah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [htdig-dev
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
> the patch yet myself, but when I looked at it, I noticed the subdirectory
> name was missing from the new files in htlib in Geoff's patch.
Bah. Thanks for catching that--running "cvs diff -N" apparently doesn't
give you the pathnames. Seemed like a
According to Geoff Hutchison:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Joe R. Jah wrote:
> > I agree that a single patch is a lot neater, but apparently lack of those
> > files is not the only problem because even after I copied the files it did
> > not compile.
>
> No, the patch I sent uses different versions of
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Joe R. Jah wrote:
> I agree that a single patch is a lot neater, but apparently lack of those
> files is not the only problem because even after I copied the files it did
> not compile.
No, the patch I sent uses different versions of the files--we do not want
to use the curr
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Geoff Hutchison wrote:
> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 08:26:23 -0500
> From: Geoff Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Joe R. Jah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [htdig-dev] Re: URL Rewrite patch for 3.1.6 snapshots
>
>
At 11:50 PM -0700 9/23/01, Joe R. Jah wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, it works OK, but I'm not going to commit it until I
>> get a few brave testers.
>
>First crack:
>---8<-
>URL.cc:16: HtURLRewriter.h: No such file or directory
Hmm. The patc
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Geoff Hutchison wrote:
> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 23:28:33 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Geoff Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [htdig-dev] Re: URL Rewrite patch for 3.1.6 snapshots
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This is a backported
Hi,
This is a backported version of the URL rewrite patch for the 3.1.6
code--backported because I took the 3.2.x version and migrated it back,
adding as little as necessary to implement it.
As far as I can tell, it works OK, but I'm not going to commit it until I
get a few brave testers.
-Geo
27 matches
Mail list logo
