httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From c...@decus.org (Rodent of Unusual Size)
Subject Re: some remarks (bugs ?) (fwd)
Date Wed, 03 Sep 1997 19:35:27 GMT
>From the fingers of Rob Hartill flowed the following:
>
>I've sent a suggestion for (d). The rest are unanswered.
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:42:43 +0200
>From: mueller <mueller@iwf.bepr.ethz.ch>
>To: apache-bugs@apache.org
>Subject: some remarks (bugs ?)
>
    [...]
>a)
>the automatically generated makefile contains one error that aborts
>the linking process. for optimization the flags are "-O2" but our
>cc understands only "-O". i know that most compilers understand "-O2"
>but maybe ours is too old for that. after correcting it linked as it
>should. so i don't know who is to blame...

    This was fixed by Jim for 1.3, yes?

>b)
>within the allow and deny clauses you required to indicate each and every
>hostname. would it be possible  to include wildcards like "*" and "?" ?
>we e. g. have machines "iwf-pc1" to "iwf-pc36". whith "iwf-pc*" i had not
>to indicate every single machine. maybe there are security reason that
>you have not included this feature, but maybe it is worth checking it.

    You know, I just had a similar brainstorm about this the other night
    (after the feature-freeze, unfortunately): make mod_access RE-aware.
    Could address a *lot* of the confusions we've seen about "from .x.com"
    versus "from x.com"..

>c)
>you may also indicate parts of ip-addresses for allow and deny purposes.
>but only byte-sized chunks are allowed. from an address 11.22.33.44
>you give 11.22.33. this implied a netmask ff.ff.ff.0. but our netmask
>is ff.ff.ff.c0 to allow more (but smaller) subgroups. in the documentation
>i found no hint that this implied netmask can be changed. i think it
>is worth considering it.

    CIDR syntax is in 1.3 also, correct?  (Dean's work, ISTR.)  Does
    that apply in general, or only in CIDR environments?

>d)
>for apache 1.1.1 i have a ps-file as documentation. (this was installed
>by my predator as sysadm, and i cannot ask him right now) for apache
>1.2.4 i found no such thing on the server. is it possible that apache
>switched entirely to online docs ? when the server does not yet run
>it is very convenient to have a printed documentation. any hint from
>side is welcome...

    Tell him to buy Ben's book.  (Ben, don't forget my kick-back ;->

    #ken    P-)}

Mime
View raw message