On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
I quite agree now that mod_python 3.2 should be a big bugfix release,
instead of a release with a lot of new bells and whistles. Let's comment
this thing out and see if we bring it back later.
Sounds good. I'm undecided on whether special tratment of
From the 3.2.5b doc:
(http://www.modpython.org/live/mod_python-3.2.5b/doc-html/inst-prerequisites.html)
2.1 Prerequisites
* Python 2.2.1 or later. Earlier versions of Python will not work.
Is this still true or have we dropped support for python < 2.3? Has
anybody tested using python 2.2
I'm pretty sure we've had a few discussions about being able to use certain
functions and modules because they became available in 2.3, and that's what
mod_python was going to require. Like the bsddb database version for your
session code, for example.
Nick
Jim Gallacher wrote:
From the 3.
I figured we had moved on to 2.3, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't
missing something before I changed the docs. I'm not sure if there was a
formal decision on this or everyone just assumed it was true. Perhaps a
pronoucement from Grisha to make it offical?
If python 2.2 support has been drop
accessing some request or server object members causes a segfault
-
Key: MODPYTHON-99
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-99
Project: mod_python
Type: Bug
Components: core
Version
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-99?page=all ]
Jim Gallacher updated MODPYTHON-99:
---
Attachment: md-20051209.diff
Martin's patch (md-20051209.diff)
> accessing some request or server object members causes a
core
> Versions: 3.2
> Reporter: Jim Gallacher
> Priority: Critical
> Attachments: md-20051209.diff
>
> Martin Devara discovered a segfault when accessing some request object
> members. For example:
> def handler(req):
> req.content_type = "text/plai
I am still fighting with my mod_python problem on Tru64. I have been able
to set up a test configuration with just standard Apache modules and
mod_python loaded (no php, no dav, no subversion...) and without any url
activating a mod_python handler.
The problem remains the same. Just after star
Type: Bug
> Components: core
> Versions: 3.2
> Reporter: Jim Gallacher
> Priority: Critical
> Attachments: md-20051209.diff
>
> Martin Devara discovered a segfault when accessing some request object
> members. For example:
> def handler(req):
> r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.mod-python.devel/865
Jim Gallacher wrote:
| I figured we had moved on to 2.3, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't
| missing something before I changed the docs. I'm not sure if there was a
| formal decision o
OK then, good enough.
Next question. Should we bump the Apache version requirement as well.
Currently the docs state that Apache 2.0.40 or later is required. I
don't recall seeing anyone testing mod_python 3.2 on anything less than
apache 2.0.53. I don't know if there are any changes between 4
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
Next question. Should we bump the Apache version requirement as well.
Currently the docs state that Apache 2.0.40 or later is required. I
don't recall seeing anyone testing mod_python 3.2 on anything less than
apache 2.0.53. I don't know if there are a
Just to make sure, are you using PythonImport directive at all? Want
to eliminate
this as these get run regardless of whether a request against a
mod_python
handler is received. If the code associated with PythonImport took
some time
to run, that might be a contributor.
Anyway, not sure wha
13 matches
Mail list logo
