You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to stable-testers@httpd.apache.org by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> on 2004/06/22 22:09:39 UTC
Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Hi,
My second attempt at preparing a 2.0.50 rc tarball...
I've tagged the tree (STRIKER_2_0_50_RC2) and uploaded associated
tarballs to:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please test and report.
Thanks!
Sander
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Chip Cuccio <ch...@norlug.org>.
Builds and works well on;
- Red Hat Linux 7.2, 7.3, 8.0, & 9.0
- Fedora Core Linux 1, & 2
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1, & 3.0
- Slackware Linux 8.1, 9.0, 9.1, & '-current' (AKA: 10.0 RC2)
Thanks...
--
Chip Cuccio | <ch...@norlug.org>
NORLUG SysAdmin & Webmaster | <http://norlug.org/~chipster/>
Northfield Linux Users' Group | Northfield, Minnesota USA
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Tom Alsberg <al...@cs.huji.ac.il>.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:21:58PM -0500, Edward Rudd wrote:
> From reading the bug report, it seems that there was one objection to the
> patch, in that it adds a new keyword, and the preference was to extend the
> existing AllowOverride keyword. So the next step should be to update the
> patch to use the existion keyword with the Options= style usage and attach
> that patch to the bug report.
OK,
At: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29310
Created an attachment (id=12022)
Patch for httpd 2.0.50 with syntax AllowOverride Options=
I'd appreciate any work into integrating it to upstream Apache,
possibly with the 2.0 versions as well.
Thanks,
-- Tom
--
Tom Alsberg - hacker (being the best description fitting this space)
Web page: http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~alsbergt/
DISCLAIMER: The above message does not even necessarily represent what
my fingers have typed on the keyboard, save anything further.
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Edward Rudd <ed...@omegaware.com>.
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:12:02 +0300, Tom Alsberg wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:30:22AM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
> So to ask differently: Any work in progress to get this into the
> 2.1-HEAD branch? I just don't want that patch to sit there dead.
> Given that nobody has said so much more, I'd assume nobody objects to
> the current form of the patch. If there's a problem - please don't
> just forget it because the current form isn't to your liking...
>From reading the bug report, it seems that there was one objection to the
patch, in that it adds a new keyword, and the preference was to extend the
existing AllowOverride keyword. So the next step should be to update the
patch to use the existion keyword with the Options= style usage and attach
that patch to the bug report.
>
> OK. Any forum which might be more appropriate, if so, to discuss
> changes to the 2.1-HEAD branch?
This mailing list is the perfect place to discuss changes to the 2.1-HEAD
branch.
>
> -- Tom
Edward Rudd
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Edward Rudd <ed...@omegaware.com>.
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:29:21 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> My only confusion is what your patch for AllowOverrideOptions does, that
> AllowOverride doesn't accomplish. I've too few cycles to dig deeply, but
> could you provide a trivial example?
>
>From reading the bug report, Tom's patch allows the specification of
specific (by name) configuration options that can be used in .htaccess,
instead of configuration option groups.
> Bill
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for
testing
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 12:12 PM 6/23/2004, Tom Alsberg wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:30:22AM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>> the process for adding new features to Apache 2.0 is to first integrate the
>> feature into Apache 2.1 (cvs HEAD). after that, the feature is voted upon
>> for inclusion in the stable 2.0 branch.
>
>Yes, I understand that...
>
>So to ask differently: Any work in progress to get this into the
>2.1-HEAD branch? I just don't want that patch to sit there dead.
My only confusion is what your patch for AllowOverrideOptions does, that
AllowOverride doesn't accomplish. I've too few cycles to dig deeply, but
could you provide a trivial example?
Just as a footnote, even if this were integrated into 2.1 today, it wouldn't
be backported as a new feature this close to release, and may not be
backported at all, as the developers are trying to simply get 2.0 stable
and focus energy with new features into 2.1-dev, that version will ultimately
become an httpd-2.2.0 release once the development tree is stable.
(Then, as we release 2.2 versions, we will be dropping new-feature energy
at a 2.3-dev tree, much like Linux and Perl projects do.)
Bill
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Tom Alsberg <al...@cs.huji.ac.il>.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:30:22AM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> the process for adding new features to Apache 2.0 is to first integrate the
> feature into Apache 2.1 (cvs HEAD). after that, the feature is voted upon
> for inclusion in the stable 2.0 branch.
Yes, I understand that...
So to ask differently: Any work in progress to get this into the
2.1-HEAD branch? I just don't want that patch to sit there dead.
Since my mail about it got no response, I would hope to know what's
going on with it.
> from the bug report, it sounds like not only is the feature not in
> 2.1, but that it hasn't been decided what its final form will be.
Given that nobody has said so much more, I'd assume nobody objects to
the current form of the patch. If there's a problem - please don't
just forget it because the current form isn't to your liking...
> so there are a few steps left to overcome for this feature yet.
OK. Any forum which might be more appropriate, if so, to discuss
changes to the 2.1-HEAD branch?
-- Tom
--
Tom Alsberg - hacker (being the best description fitting this space)
Web page: http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~alsbergt/
DISCLAIMER: The above message does not even necessarily represent what
my fingers have typed on the keyboard, save anything further.
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>.
Tom Alsberg wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 10:09:39PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>My second attempt at preparing a 2.0.50 rc tarball...
>
>
> OK, I'll be more direct now (my last mail to this list has apparently
> been ignored). Can you please try to get this:
>
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29310
>
> into that release?
the process for adding new features to Apache 2.0 is to first integrate the
feature into Apache 2.1 (cvs HEAD). after that, the feature is voted upon
for inclusion in the stable 2.0 branch. from the bug report, it sounds like
not only is the feature not in 2.1, but that it hasn't been decided what its
final form will be. so there are a few steps left to overcome for this
feature yet.
that, and although this is really the call of the release manager, in
general I would expect that once a release candidate is tagged changes to
the tree should be minimal (doc changes, for example) or extreme (like
just-discovered security flaws, in which case the tag is probably tossed and
the release number skipped). or something like that :)
HTH
--Geoff
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Tom Alsberg <al...@cs.huji.ac.il>.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 10:09:39PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My second attempt at preparing a 2.0.50 rc tarball...
OK, I'll be more direct now (my last mail to this list has apparently
been ignored). Can you please try to get this:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29310
into that release?
Thanks,
-- Tom
--
Tom Alsberg - hacker (being the best description fitting this space)
Web page: http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~alsbergt/
DISCLAIMER: The above message does not even necessarily represent what
my fingers have typed on the keyboard, save anything further.
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>.
Sander Striker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My second attempt at preparing a 2.0.50 rc tarball...
>
> I've tagged the tree (STRIKER_2_0_50_RC2) and uploaded associated
> tarballs to:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please test and report.
plays nice with mod_perl-2.0 on fedora core 1. also plays nice with the
perl-framework.
good work.
--Geoff
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>.
Sander Striker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My second attempt at preparing a 2.0.50 rc tarball...
>
> I've tagged the tree (STRIKER_2_0_50_RC2) and uploaded associated
> tarballs to:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please test and report.
plays nice with mod_perl-2.0 on fedora core 1. also plays nice with the
perl-framework.
good work.
--Geoff
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 10:09:39PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My second attempt at preparing a 2.0.50 rc tarball...
>
> I've tagged the tree (STRIKER_2_0_50_RC2) and uploaded associated
> tarballs to:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please test and report.
Asside from a little tinkering with APR needed to make it build with
CFLAGS="-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE" (I'll mail apr-dev
in a few mins) it works fine on Debian Linux, 2.6 kernel, with IPv6 :)
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Refer to http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html --- especially;
>
> To apply the ALv2 to a new software distribution, include one copy of
> the license text by copying the file:
>
> <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt>http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
>
> into a file called LICENSE in the top directory of your distribution.
> If the distribution is a jar or tar file, try to add the LICENSE file first
> in order to place it at the top of the archive.
>
> In addition, a NOTICE file should be included in the same directory as
> the LICENSE file. [...]
> So it seems that burying LICENSE (and NOTICE) within ./manual/ for
> our binary distributions (unpacked into /opt/asf/apache2/ or wherever)
> just doesn't cut it.
I just checked - a normal ./configure ; make ; make install does not
install the NOTICE file anywhere.
In theory the NOTICE file should be installed next to the LICENCE file.
The solution would then be to fix the make install target first - the
RPM spec doesn't install what make install doesn't put there...
Is the missing NOTICE file reason enough to hold up the release of v2.0.50?
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for
testing
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Referring to our own license's redistribution requirements;
4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:
* You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
* You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and
* You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
* If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License.
It's pretty clear that LICENSE and NOTICE must accompany any distribution,
from the ASF or a third party, e.g. an RPM.
Refer to http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html --- especially;
To apply the ALv2 to a new software distribution, include one copy of
the license text by copying the file:
<http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt>http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
into a file called LICENSE in the top directory of your distribution.
If the distribution is a jar or tar file, try to add the LICENSE file first
in order to place it at the top of the archive.
In addition, a NOTICE file should be included in the same directory as
the LICENSE file. [...]
So it seems that burying LICENSE (and NOTICE) within ./manual/ for
our binary distributions (unpacked into /opt/asf/apache2/ or wherever)
just doesn't cut it.
But obviously, if I'm dropping httpd into /usr/local/ (bin/, lib/, etc) this
would be patently absurd to place LICENSE into /usr/local/. Thoughts?
At 02:16 PM 6/24/2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>At 01:18 PM 6/24/2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
>>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>Graham, silly question. When it deploys as an RPM, do we also copy
>>>LICENSE and NOTICE to some appropriate spot? This tripped me in
>>>the latest updates - was moving the LICENSE and not NOTICE in the
>>>time since that second file was introduced.
>>
>>Just checked: Neither our RPM nor the Redhat one (on which our RPM was originally based) include either LICENCE or NOTICE.
>>
>>What directories do these files get installed to normally by Apache's make install?
>
>Heh, maybe they don't. In the win32 installer and build system we drop them
>into the target directory, alongside the bin, htdocs, modules directories.
>
>On unix, we do toss LICENSE into $target/manual/ - but we are missing
>NOTICE in the build system. Perhaps that's the start (maybe the end)
>of fixing this for your rpm?
>
>Where in an httpd install, i'd say alongside. When installing into the /usr/
>or /usr/local/ space? that's a good question.
>
>Bill
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Heh, maybe they don't. In the win32 installer and build system we drop them
> into the target directory, alongside the bin, htdocs, modules directories.
>
> On unix, we do toss LICENSE into $target/manual/ - but we are missing
> NOTICE in the build system. Perhaps that's the start (maybe the end)
> of fixing this for your rpm?
>
> Where in an httpd install, i'd say alongside. When installing into the /usr/
> or /usr/local/ space? that's a good question.
Ok, looked again to be sure - the LICENSE file is included, and is
placed in the RPM build inside /usr/share/doc/httpd-2.0.50/LICENSE.
The NOTICE file seems to be missing.
Just building it again to see where the install puts the NOTICE file...
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Heh, maybe they don't. In the win32 installer and build system we drop them
> into the target directory, alongside the bin, htdocs, modules directories.
>
> On unix, we do toss LICENSE into $target/manual/ - but we are missing
> NOTICE in the build system. Perhaps that's the start (maybe the end)
> of fixing this for your rpm?
>
> Where in an httpd install, i'd say alongside. When installing into the /usr/
> or /usr/local/ space? that's a good question.
Ok, looked again to be sure - the LICENSE file is included, and is
placed in the RPM build inside /usr/share/doc/httpd-2.0.50/LICENSE.
The NOTICE file seems to be missing.
Just building it again to see where the install puts the NOTICE file...
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for
testing
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 01:18 PM 6/24/2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>Graham, silly question. When it deploys as an RPM, do we also copy
>>LICENSE and NOTICE to some appropriate spot? This tripped me in
>>the latest updates - was moving the LICENSE and not NOTICE in the
>>time since that second file was introduced.
>
>Just checked: Neither our RPM nor the Redhat one (on which our RPM was originally based) include either LICENCE or NOTICE.
>
>What directories do these files get installed to normally by Apache's make install?
Heh, maybe they don't. In the win32 installer and build system we drop them
into the target directory, alongside the bin, htdocs, modules directories.
On unix, we do toss LICENSE into $target/manual/ - but we are missing
NOTICE in the build system. Perhaps that's the start (maybe the end)
of fixing this for your rpm?
Where in an httpd install, i'd say alongside. When installing into the /usr/
or /usr/local/ space? that's a good question.
Bill
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for
testing
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 01:18 PM 6/24/2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>Graham, silly question. When it deploys as an RPM, do we also copy
>>LICENSE and NOTICE to some appropriate spot? This tripped me in
>>the latest updates - was moving the LICENSE and not NOTICE in the
>>time since that second file was introduced.
>
>Just checked: Neither our RPM nor the Redhat one (on which our RPM was originally based) include either LICENCE or NOTICE.
>
>What directories do these files get installed to normally by Apache's make install?
Heh, maybe they don't. In the win32 installer and build system we drop them
into the target directory, alongside the bin, htdocs, modules directories.
On unix, we do toss LICENSE into $target/manual/ - but we are missing
NOTICE in the build system. Perhaps that's the start (maybe the end)
of fixing this for your rpm?
Where in an httpd install, i'd say alongside. When installing into the /usr/
or /usr/local/ space? that's a good question.
Bill
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Graham, silly question. When it deploys as an RPM, do we also copy
> LICENSE and NOTICE to some appropriate spot? This tripped me in
> the latest updates - was moving the LICENSE and not NOTICE in the
> time since that second file was introduced.
Just checked: Neither our RPM nor the Redhat one (on which our RPM was
originally based) include either LICENCE or NOTICE.
What directories do these files get installed to normally by Apache's
make install?
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Graham, silly question. When it deploys as an RPM, do we also copy
> LICENSE and NOTICE to some appropriate spot? This tripped me in
> the latest updates - was moving the LICENSE and not NOTICE in the
> time since that second file was introduced.
Just checked: Neither our RPM nor the Redhat one (on which our RPM was
originally based) include either LICENCE or NOTICE.
What directories do these files get installed to normally by Apache's
make install?
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for
testing
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 12:33 PM 6/24/2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
>Sander Striker wrote:
>
>>My second attempt at preparing a 2.0.50 rc tarball...
>>I've tagged the tree (STRIKER_2_0_50_RC2) and uploaded associated
>>tarballs to:
>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>Please test and report.
>
>The tarball refuses to build as an RPM.
>
>The attached patch fixes this.
>
>I need one more +1 in STATUS to commit this to the tree, any takers?
Graham, silly question. When it deploys as an RPM, do we also copy
LICENSE and NOTICE to some appropriate spot? This tripped me in
the latest updates - was moving the LICENSE and not NOTICE in the
time since that second file was introduced.
Bill
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> --- build/rpm/httpd.spec.in 2004-02-07 20:44:30.000000000 +0200
>> +++ httpd.spec.in 2004-06-24 19:25:19.000000000 +0200
>> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
>> License: Apache License, Version 2.0
>> Group: System Environment/Daemons
>> BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-root
>> -BuildPrereq: openldap-devel, db3-devel, expat-devel, findutils, perl,
>> pkgconfig
>> +BuildPrereq: openldap-devel, db4-devel, expat-devel, findutils, perl,
>> pkgconfig
>
>
> curious: why change the db level?
db4 seems to be the latest version widely deployed among recent RPM
based systems. db3-devel for example is not available for RHEL3 to my
knowledge.
Ideally the most recent stable httpd version released should use the
most recent stable dependancies available. If vendors want to change
this to match vendor specific behavior that's fine, but I think the
official Apache releases should try be as up to date as possible.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Graham Leggett wrote:
> --- build/rpm/httpd.spec.in 2004-02-07 20:44:30.000000000 +0200
> +++ httpd.spec.in 2004-06-24 19:25:19.000000000 +0200
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
> License: Apache License, Version 2.0
> Group: System Environment/Daemons
> BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-root
> -BuildPrereq: openldap-devel, db3-devel, expat-devel, findutils, perl, pkgconfig
> +BuildPrereq: openldap-devel, db4-devel, expat-devel, findutils, perl, pkgconfig
curious: why change the db level?
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for
testing
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 12:33 PM 6/24/2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
>Sander Striker wrote:
>
>>My second attempt at preparing a 2.0.50 rc tarball...
>>I've tagged the tree (STRIKER_2_0_50_RC2) and uploaded associated
>>tarballs to:
>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>Please test and report.
>
>The tarball refuses to build as an RPM.
>
>The attached patch fixes this.
>
>I need one more +1 in STATUS to commit this to the tree, any takers?
Graham, silly question. When it deploys as an RPM, do we also copy
LICENSE and NOTICE to some appropriate spot? This tripped me in
the latest updates - was moving the LICENSE and not NOTICE in the
time since that second file was introduced.
Bill
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Sander Striker wrote:
> My second attempt at preparing a 2.0.50 rc tarball...
>
> I've tagged the tree (STRIKER_2_0_50_RC2) and uploaded associated
> tarballs to:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please test and report.
The tarball refuses to build as an RPM.
The attached patch fixes this.
I need one more +1 in STATUS to commit this to the tree, any takers?
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Sander Striker wrote:
> My second attempt at preparing a 2.0.50 rc tarball...
>
> I've tagged the tree (STRIKER_2_0_50_RC2) and uploaded associated
> tarballs to:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please test and report.
The tarball refuses to build as an RPM.
The attached patch fixes this.
I need one more +1 in STATUS to commit this to the tree, any takers?
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Tom Alsberg <al...@cs.huji.ac.il>.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 10:09:39PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My second attempt at preparing a 2.0.50 rc tarball...
OK, I'll be more direct now (my last mail to this list has apparently
been ignored). Can you please try to get this:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29310
into that release?
Thanks,
-- Tom
--
Tom Alsberg - hacker (being the best description fitting this space)
Web page: http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~alsbergt/
DISCLAIMER: The above message does not even necessarily represent what
my fingers have typed on the keyboard, save anything further.
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Tom Alsberg <al...@cs.huji.ac.il>.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 10:09:39PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My second attempt at preparing a 2.0.50 rc tarball...
OK, I'll be more direct now (my last mail to this list has apparently
been ignored). Can you please try to get this:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29310
into that release?
Thanks,
-- Tom
--
Tom Alsberg - hacker (being the best description fitting this space)
Web page: http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~alsbergt/
DISCLAIMER: The above message does not even necessarily represent what
my fingers have typed on the keyboard, save anything further.
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Sander Striker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My second attempt at preparing a 2.0.50 rc tarball...
>
> I've tagged the tree (STRIKER_2_0_50_RC2) and uploaded associated
> tarballs to:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please test and report.
looks good to me on AIX 5.1 and Solaris 9...
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please test and report.
Testsuite on Gentoo looks good.
nd
--
>I have tried using ErrorDocument 401, but doesn't work.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh dear. What does it do - lounge around on the couch all day drinking
beer and watching TV? -- "Kash" und Alan J. Flavell in ciwsu
>
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Sascha Kersken <sk...@lingoworld.de>.
It compiles and works without any problems on SuSE 9.0 Professional (with
MPM prefork).
Sascha
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sander Striker" <st...@apache.org>
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Cc: <st...@httpd.apache.org>; <cu...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
> Hi,
>
> My second attempt at preparing a 2.0.50 rc tarball...
>
> I've tagged the tree (STRIKER_2_0_50_RC2) and uploaded associated
> tarballs to:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please test and report.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sander
Re: Apache HTTP Server 2.0.50-rc2 tarballs available for testing
Posted by Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>.
Sander Striker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My second attempt at preparing a 2.0.50 rc tarball...
>
> I've tagged the tree (STRIKER_2_0_50_RC2) and uploaded associated
> tarballs to:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please test and report.
plays nice with mod_perl-2.0 on fedora core 1. also plays nice with the
perl-framework.
good work.
--Geoff