Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 62585 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2007 21:23:10 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Sep 2007 21:23:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 88089 invoked by uid 500); 6 Sep 2007 21:23:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 88027 invoked by uid 500); 6 Sep 2007 21:23:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 88016 invoked by uid 99); 6 Sep 2007 21:23:01 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:23:01 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [64.202.165.227] (HELO smtpout06.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net) (64.202.165.227) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:24:18 +0000 Received: (qmail 30536 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2007 21:22:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (24.15.193.17) by smtpout06-04.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.227) with ESMTP; 06 Sep 2007 21:22:31 -0000 Message-ID: <46E06F96.90201@rowe-clan.net> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:22:30 -0500 From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review References: <68CC494D-8EDD-4017-84B0-4C9ECA9357B9@jaguNET.com> <001601c7f097$6ee667b0$0100a8c0@mother> In-Reply-To: <001601c7f097$6ee667b0$0100a8c0@mother> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Steffen wrote: > > I the meantime we have to advise the users not to use 2.2.6 because is > not compatible with some mods (not just mod_fcgid). We shall advise to > stay on 2.2.4 or 2.2.5 RC. If you would like to clear up FUD ("some mods") with "explicit mods" that would be productive. It would also be productive to discuss your concern with the mod_fcgid maintainers, as the apr behavior is not likely to be regressed to the previous behavior of leaking file handles (which I suspect mod_fcgid had leveraged). If I understand your later post; > mod_fcgid is not working for me, either with Perl or with my own FCGI > test program. your issues with mod_perl were in conjunction -with- mod_fcgid? Just trying to narrow down the focus. Bill