httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From C...@PROCESS.COM (Rodent of Unusual Size)
Subject RE: [STATUS] 1.3b4-dev Sun Nov 30 11:16:51 EST 1997
Date Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 GMT
>From the fingers of Jim Jagielski flowed the following:
>    * Dean's [PATCH] fail gracefully if cd fails
>	<>
>	Status: Dean +1, Jim +1

    +1 (untested)

>    * Dean's [PATCH] Re: general/1491: mmap_handler error_log entry
>	<>
>	Status: Dean +1, Jim +1

    +1 (untested)

>    * Roy's [PATCH] protocol/1399: failing to read body
>	<>
>	Status: Roy +1,

    +1 (untested)

>    * Dean's [PRE-PATCH] expanding ap_snprintf()
>	<>
>	Status: Dean +1, Ben +1, Jim 0, Martin 0, Brian +1(?)
>	See <>
>	for a more up-to-date idea (int vformatter) that has a
>	vote of +1 from Dean, Ben, Martin, Paul and Jim for concept

    As mentioned before, +1 on the first part if we utterly scrap the
    use of any OS version of snprintf().  +0 on the vformatter concept
    (have to review it).

>Open issues:
>    * Release builds: Should we provide Configuration or not?

    Not if there's no httpd binary.  See separate patch to Configure to
    make it say what needs to be done.  Configuration should be supplied
    if there's an httpd supplied, and it should be usable (module list,
    et cetera) to perfectly re-create the binary.

>    * Apache's 'pid' file is created under the UID/GID that Apache
>	switches to. Dean thinks this should be fixed.


>    * root's environment is inherited by the Apache server. Jim and
>	Dean thinks we should recommend using 'env' to build the
>	appropriate environment. Marc and Alexei don't see any
>	big deal.

    +1 on addition of env prefix, with the proviso of a configuration
    line in apachectl that lets the user choose/specify what envariables
    should be passed.

>    * Sameer's mod_so implemetation
>	See <>
>	Issues: Underscores: Should I try prepending, appending, and
>	 ignoring? -> Alexei says look at Java
>	 Location? os/unix ??

    All of the above.

>    * NameVirtualHost
>	Causes mucho confusion... Dean is ready to ``admit defeat''
>	but should we let him? Lars suggests making NameVirtualHost
>	a required directive or at least an error message, since
>	it will snag many who go from 1.2 to 1.3. Randy wonders why
>	this isn't the default behavior.

    Didn't Dean withdrawn his "I ain't a-gonna do it" remark when the
    new vhost documentation was created?

>    * The PR#918 patch above appears to have been bogus, should be fixed or
>	reversed.  It has been reversed for now.

    Just what *is* this?

    #ken    P-)}

View raw message