Return-Path: owner-new-httpd Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id KAA23854; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 10:18:36 -0700 Received: from luers.qosina.com by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA23849; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 10:18:31 -0700 Received: from guru.qosina.com (guru.qosina.com [206.64.187.12]) by luers.qosina.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA01772 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 13:15:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 13:15:35 -0400 Message-Id: <199508221715.NAA01772@luers.qosina.com> X-Sender: awm@qosina.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com From: "Aram W. Mirzadeh" Subject: Re: Yet more Linux woes Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org I sent this guy a couple of suggestions, and asked for a couple of things, does anyone want a cc of the messages? At 10:25 AM 8/22/95 MDT, you wrote: > >Do we need to have a set of pre-compiled binaries for each platform ? > >I can't see any problem doing this, so unless there's an object, can >we agree on what options to compile with then upload our binaries ? > >BTW, for this to work well, common features such as XBITHACK should be >made a config option (assuming it hasn't already) so that we don't >need multiple versions of binaries (basic/dbm auth could cause trouble). > > >Here's a Linux user in need of assistance. If anyone wants to help him, >please contact him directly, having me as the middle man only introduces >confusion and delay. > >> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 23:58:12 +0800 >> Message-Id: <199508221558.XAA00287@who.overseas.com.tw> >> X-Sender: lizard@overseas.com.tw >> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1 >> Mime-Version: 1.0 >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> To: hartill@lanl.gov >> From: Steven Fox >> Subject: Re: (fwd) for our Linux gurus (fwd) >> Status: RO >> >> I am sorry to report that reinstalling LINUX kernel v1.2.7, & recompiling >> Apache 0.8.10 did not solve the problem, look: >> >> [Tue Aug 22 23:43:18 1995] socket error: accept failed >> [Tue Aug 22 23:46:37 1995] socket error: accept failed >> [Tue Aug 22 23:48:59 1995] socket error: accept failed >> [Tue Aug 22 23:49:01 1995] socket error: accept failed >> >> -Steven Fox > >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 13:25:52 -0400 >> >> From: "Aram W. Mirzadeh" >> >> Subject: Re: (fwd) for our Linux gurus >> >> >> >> I had the same problem, I downgraded the linux kernel to 1.2.8 and problem >> >> went away. Haven't had time to investigate the problem, but I'll look >> into it. >> >> >> >> BTW, after the downgrade, you'll need to recompile the apache code. >> >> >> >> > > -- Aram W. Mirzadeh, MIS Manager, Qosina Corporation http://www.qosina.com/~awm/, awm@qosina.com