Randy Kobes wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
Randy Kobes wrote:
[ .. ]
As Bill mentioned in another message, it looks like it would be
possible to integrate it within httpd-2.0. So rather than
including it within the Apache-Test sources, what I could do is
add a post-install script t
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Randy Kobes wrote:
[ .. ]
> > As Bill mentioned in another message, it looks like it would be
> > possible to integrate it within httpd-2.0. So rather than
> > including it within the Apache-Test sources, what I could do is
> > add a post-install script to
Randy Kobes wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
Randy Kobes wrote:
[ .. ]
This requires two files at the same level as Makefile.PL -
apxs_win32 and apxs_win32_PL, which I've put up under
http://theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca/. apxs_win32 isn't the cleanest
script ever been written :); part of the
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Randy Kobes wrote:
[ .. ]
> > This requires two files at the same level as Makefile.PL -
> > apxs_win32 and apxs_win32_PL, which I've put up under
> > http://theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca/. apxs_win32 isn't the cleanest
> > script ever been written :); part of the
Randy Kobes wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
+1 on the patch
Randy, whatever you think is the best for win32, please go
ahead with it. Untill we get someone else on win32 involved,
you are pretty much free to decide how to handle things and
what's the best for the user, as long as t
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
> +1 on the patch
>
> Randy, whatever you think is the best for win32, please go
> ahead with it. Untill we get someone else on win32 involved,
> you are pretty much free to decide how to handle things and
> what's the best for the user, as long as the chan
Randy Kobes wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
Randy Kobes wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
Randy Kobes wrote:
I've been looking at getting apxs for Win32 working on Apache 2.
where would it go? Apache::Test? mod_perl?
If there's consensus, I think the better place woul
Randy Kobes wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
Randy Kobes wrote:
[...]
I'll take a look at this tonight as well - it'd probably
be easier to change, for Win32, the assumption of the
name of the httpd binary when apxs is present.
Thanks Randy!
Thanks for looking this over, Stas - I kn
At 10:09 PM 7/29/2003, Randy Kobes wrote:
>As far getting the right name for the Win32 binary goes with apxs
>present, I don't think there's an ideal solution ... To
>summarize, the problem is that apxs -q TARGET ( = httpd) is used
>in Apache-Test for the name of the apache binary, whereas in
>oth
Geoffrey Young wrote:
BTW, are we still +1 on the have_apache_mpm() patch I posted last? I
know Bill had some thoughts on hitting up ap_mpm_query instead of httpd
-V, but if we can agree on have_apache_mpm() as the API, then we can use
the current implementation and I can play with ap_mpm_query
[Splitting into a new thread]
Randy Kobes wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>Randy Kobes wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
>>>
>>>
In the last few weeks the following two issues were raised:
1) store a default location of httpd/apxs in Apache::Tes
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Randy Kobes wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
> >
> >>In the last few weeks the following two issues were raised:
> >>
> >>1) store a default location of httpd/apxs in Apache::Test so one should
> >>provide it only once.
> >>
> >>I'm +1 on
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Randy Kobes wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
> >
> >>Randy Kobes wrote:
> >>
> >>>I've been looking at getting apxs for Win32 working on Apache 2.
> >>
> >>where would it go? Apache::Test? mod_perl?
> >
> > If there's consensus, I think t
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Randy Kobes wrote:
> [...]
> > I'll take a look at this tonight as well - it'd probably
> > be easier to change, for Win32, the assumption of the
> > name of the httpd binary when apxs is present.
>
> Thanks Randy!
Thanks for looking this over, Stas - I k
well, it was a web services interface, and some of the services
required root permission to manipulate certain backend elements.
You still have the root permissions. it's only the server that starts
with non-root perms. why do you needed that override?
you need to be root in order to start Apac
Geoffrey Young wrote:
the way I handled this was to add the following to my TEST.PL
# override root blocks
local *Apache::TestConfig::default_user = sub { return 'root' };
local *Apache::TestConfig::default_group = sub { return 'root' };
why do you need to run tests as root?
well, it was a
the way I handled this was to add the following to my TEST.PL
# override root blocks
local *Apache::TestConfig::default_user = sub { return 'root' };
local *Apache::TestConfig::default_group = sub { return 'root' };
why do you need to run tests as root?
well, it was a web services interface
Welcome back, Geoff!
2) We have a problem with Apache::Test running as root, since when
Apache "sudoes" into 'nobody' it can't access files under /root or
some other root owned dir. The current cvs version already tries to
tell the user about the problem before starting to run the test suite.
I
18 matches
Mail list logo
