Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-bugs-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 65175 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2004 12:27:42 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Sep 2004 12:27:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 77987 invoked by uid 500); 11 Sep 2004 12:27:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-bugs-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 77928 invoked by uid 500); 11 Sep 2004 12:27:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact bugs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Reply-To: "Apache HTTPD Bugs Notification List" Delivered-To: mailing list bugs@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 77913 invoked by uid 99); 11 Sep 2004 12:27:40 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=10.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME,UPPERCASE_25_50 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [192.18.33.10] (HELO exchange.sun.com) (192.18.33.10) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Sat, 11 Sep 2004 05:27:38 -0700 Received: (qmail 9416 invoked by uid 50); 11 Sep 2004 12:29:25 -0000 Date: 11 Sep 2004 12:29:25 -0000 Message-ID: <20040911122925.9415.qmail@nagoya.betaversion.org> From: bugzilla@apache.org To: bugs@httpd.apache.org Cc: Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 31152] - Duplicate Listen directives result in nonintuitve error message X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31152 Duplicate Listen directives result in nonintuitve error message jorton@redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|Runtime Config |Documentation ------- Additional Comments From jorton@redhat.com 2004-09-11 12:29 ------- I don't see great utility in complicating the code to give a better error message in this (probably relatively rare) case. You'd have to duplicate the kernel's logic; it may be difficult w.r.t. IPv6 vs IPv4 addresses also (e.g. does [::]:80 w/o IPV6_V6ONLY conflict with 0.0.0.0:80?). A FAQ entry would be better. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-help@httpd.apache.org