Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 3006 invoked by uid 6000); 9 Oct 1998 06:30:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 2784 invoked from network); 9 Oct 1998 06:29:29 -0000 Received: from slarti.muc.de (193.174.4.10) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 9 Oct 1998 06:29:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 27366 invoked by uid 66); 9 Oct 1998 06:28:06 -0000 Received: by en1.engelschall.com (Sendmail 8.9.1) for new-httpd@apache.org id IAA29491; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:28:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <19981009082826.A29482@engelschall.com> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:28:26 +0200 From: "Ralf S. Engelschall" To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: Are the 1.3.3 SEGFAULTS blocking points? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i Organization: Engelschall, Germany. X-Web-Homepage: http://www.engelschall.com/ X-PGP-Public-Key: http://www.engelschall.com/ho/rse/pgprse.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 00 C9 21 8E D1 AB 70 37 DD 67 A2 3A 0A 6F 8D A5 Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org In article <19981009012550.B5933@deejai.mch.sni.de> you wrote: > Are the SEGV's some users experienced a reason to stop the 1.3.3 tarball? > I have the impression that the place where they occurred was quite > nonstandard, and my 3 platforms I have running here are very stable with > 1.3.3. So -0 for stopping the ball. No, +1 for release. We discovered them only in combination with mod_perl and mod_ssl and for mod_ssl only under a very special situation, so the chance is high that's the fault of these modules. Ralf S. Engelschall rse@engelschall.com www.engelschall.com