You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to bugs@httpd.apache.org by "Dr. Georg Czedik-Eysenberg" <ge...@czedik.net> on 2002/10/04 16:53:01 UTC
Re: bug 12395
Dear ladies and gentlemen,
four weeks ago, I entered the "bug 12395" into Bugzilla
(http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12395).
I do not want to put the bite on you and if you tell me, that all bugs stay
in the status "NEW" for some weeks, then of course I'll be patient.
But PLEASE tell me, whether I made any mistake during entering the
bug in Bugzilla and my mistake prevents it from being processed by you.
Many thanks, Georg
______________________________________________________
georg@czedik.net (Dr. Georg Czedik-Eysenberg)
PGP Public Key Fingerprint:
BBBB 4536 67A7 27F1 437B 62E0 B937 978F E8ED AB75
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: bug 12395
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
--On Saturday, December 28, 2002 10:58 PM +0100 André Malo
<nd...@perlig.de> wrote:
> hmm. what's the general strategy? leaving non-critical bugs in
> (older versions ;-) or decide for every case, what should be done?
I think it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. For 2.0, we
have the STATUS entries that track the waiting-to-be-merged patches.
You can commit the changes without prior review into HEAD (2.1), but
need approval/consensus to merge them back into older branches.
I also think the amount of backporting depends on how much time the
people involved in fixing an issue have and whether they want to
devote time to backporting everything they do. -- justin
Re: bug 12395
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I like the second option.
>
> if engine is disabled
> decline
>
> if symlinks-not-allowed
> error with forbidden
ok, I like this more, too.
> Sounds right to me. Feel like coding it up and committing it? =)
oh, just seeing that I have access now ;-)
I'm currently running my non-anonymous checkout. after that...
> *insert mumble about too many backports*
hmm. what's the general strategy? leaving non-critical bugs in (older
versions ;-) or decide for every case, what should be done?
nd
--
sub the($){+shift} sub answer (){ord q
[* It is always 42! *] }
print the answer
# André Malo # http://www.perlig.de/ #
Re: bug 12395
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
--On Saturday, December 28, 2002 6:14 PM +0100 André Malo
<nd...@perlig.de> wrote:
> the two conditional branches simply have to be swapped. Or better
> we could remove the else-branch and put the disabled-check before
> the 'if'. Or...?
I like the second option.
if engine is disabled
decline
if symlinks-not-allowed
error with forbidden
Sounds right to me. Feel like coding it up and committing it? =)
I'd commit it to httpd-2.0 (as that code is there too), then backport
to 1.3 when it gets approved for the 2.0 branch. *insert mumble
about too many backports* -- justin
Re: bug 12395
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Dr. Georg Czedik-Eysenberg wrote:
> But on the other hand it is now about 4 months,
> since I entered the "bug report 12395" into Bugzilla
> (http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12395)
> and it is still in the state "NEW".
<snip>
this bug should be easy to fix:
mod_rewrite.c, HEAD, line 1412:
/*
* only do something under runtime if the engine is really enabled,
* for this directory, else return immediately!
*/
if (!(ap_allow_options(r) & (OPT_SYM_LINKS | OPT_SYM_OWNER))) {
/* FollowSymLinks is mandatory! */
ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_ERR, 0, r,
"Options FollowSymLinks or SymLinksIfOwnerMatch is off
"
"which implies that RewriteRule directive is
forbidden: "
"%s", r->filename);
return HTTP_FORBIDDEN;
}
else {
/* FollowSymLinks is given, but the user can
* still turn off the rewriting engine
*/
if (dconf->state == ENGINE_DISABLED) {
return DECLINED;
}
}
the two conditional branches simply have to be swapped. Or better we could
remove the else-branch and put the disabled-check before the 'if'. Or...?
nd
--
my @japh = (sub{q~Just~},sub{q~Another~},sub{q~Perl~},sub{q~Hacker~});
my $japh = q[sub japh { }]; print join #########################
[ $japh =~ /{(.)}/] -> [0] => map $_ -> () # André Malo #
=> @japh; # http://www.perlig.de/ #
Re: bug 12395
Posted by "Dr. Georg Czedik-Eysenberg" <ge...@czedik.net>.
Hello Dirk-Willem,
thank you for your answer some months ago.
I understand, that all of you are volunteers
and do not have always have time to look at bug reports.
But on the other hand it is now about 4 months,
since I entered the "bug report 12395" into Bugzilla
(http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12395)
and it is still in the state "NEW".
Now I ask myself, whether there is anybody,
who is interested in bugs concerning "mod_rewrite".
In any case, I wish you a Happy New Year.
Georg
______________________________________________________
georg@czedik.net (Dr. Georg Czedik-Eysenberg)
PGP Public Key Fingerprint:
BBBB 4536 67A7 27F1 437B 62E0 B937 978F E8ED AB75
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dirk-Willem van Gulik" <di...@webweaving.org>
To: "Apache HTTPD Bugs Notification List" <bu...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: bug 12395
>
> The Apache HTTPd developer team consists of volunteers. Sometimes it does
> take time to get round to looking at bug reports.
>
> We do take them serious - and do feel free to pester us as often as you
> want about such things.
>
> However, we are, and will always be, an organisation which relies on
> volunteers to have time to look at things.
>
> Dw.
>
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Dr. Georg Czedik-Eysenberg wrote:
>
> > Dear ladies and gentlemen,
> >
> > four weeks ago, I entered the "bug 12395" into Bugzilla
> > (http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12395).
> >
> > I do not want to put the bite on you and if you tell me, that all bugs
stay
> > in the status "NEW" for some weeks, then of course I'll be patient.
> >
> > But PLEASE tell me, whether I made any mistake during entering the
> > bug in Bugzilla and my mistake prevents it from being processed by you.
> >
> > Many thanks, Georg
> > ______________________________________________________
> > georg@czedik.net (Dr. Georg Czedik-Eysenberg)
> > PGP Public Key Fingerprint:
> > BBBB 4536 67A7 27F1 437B 62E0 B937 978F E8ED AB75
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: bug 12395
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
The Apache HTTPd developer team consists of volunteers. Sometimes it does
take time to get round to looking at bug reports.
We do take them serious - and do feel free to pester us as often as you
want about such things.
However, we are, and will always be, an organisation which relies on
volunteers to have time to look at things.
Dw.
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Dr. Georg Czedik-Eysenberg wrote:
> Dear ladies and gentlemen,
>
> four weeks ago, I entered the "bug 12395" into Bugzilla
> (http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12395).
>
> I do not want to put the bite on you and if you tell me, that all bugs stay
> in the status "NEW" for some weeks, then of course I'll be patient.
>
> But PLEASE tell me, whether I made any mistake during entering the
> bug in Bugzilla and my mistake prevents it from being processed by you.
>
> Many thanks, Georg
> ______________________________________________________
> georg@czedik.net (Dr. Georg Czedik-Eysenberg)
> PGP Public Key Fingerprint:
> BBBB 4536 67A7 27F1 437B 62E0 B937 978F E8ED AB75
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-help@httpd.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-help@httpd.apache.org