Mailing List Archive

Votes for 0.6.2
B73_YAP_virtual_host.txt -1
doesn't compile under Solaris
B77.symlink.hole.txt 0
I'm not sure about this; doesn't it introduce a security hole for those
who relied on the old behaviour, i.e. that it wouldn't follow root-owned
symlinks to non-root files? Reminds me of IncludesNoCmdYesFlame
B79.asis_mod.txt +1
80_auth_redirect.txt 0
Actually, I don't mind too much; but it introduces another 8k string
containing the request authentication information; that brings the total
up to 3 copies, including Andrew's copy for logging of protected server-side
include docs. I guess we can clean this up later, though.
E70_add_handler.txt -1
Very useful idea, but not appropriate for a beta release. I also have
some worries about how you tell the CGI script if the document should be
protected by authentication.
O58_makefile -1
Doesn't support Solaris. Recompiles every file even if an object file
exists. Also, minor niggles; I don't like makefiles which force you to
type make <system>, and it ignores any specification of CFLAGS on the
command line.
logresolve.c +1
Though it should be documented as not being appropriate if you run
MAXIMAL_DNS.

Any change to NS cache size of 100 - 400 +1

David.
Re: Votes for 0.6.2 [ In reply to ]
Since 0.6.2 is already built (I'm about to download it and try it out,
just for safety's sake), this is a bit moot, but when I proposed it,
I specifcially meant for it to include *only* the auth bugfix, and I
think that's what Rob H. did... the rest of the stuff is pretty clearly
only for post-beta-1. Given the amount of time that beta prep is taking
up, it may make sense to postpone this week's votes on the next development
build until later this weekend (for one thing, that would give us time to
work out some more of the kinks in the non-forking stuff, and see whether
it would be appropriate to add as a Pn patch).

rst
Re: Votes for 0.6.2 [ In reply to ]
>Since 0.6.2 is already built (I'm about to download it and try it out,
>just for safety's sake), this is a bit moot, but when I proposed it,
>I specifcially meant for it to include *only* the auth bugfix, and I
>think that's what Rob H. did... the rest of the stuff is pretty clearly
>only for post-beta-1. Given the amount of time that beta prep is taking
>up, it may make sense to postpone this week's votes on the next development
>build until later this weekend (for one thing, that would give us time to
>work out some more of the kinks in the non-forking stuff, and see whether
>it would be appropriate to add as a Pn patch).

Yes, just got the message. That's fine by me.

David.