Mailing List Archive: patches offered...

patches offered...

Apr 23, 1995, 12:39 PM

Post #1 of 6 (1549 views)

from c.i.www.providers

I was able to successfully compile and execute the Apache 0.6.2 server and add
to it the log extensions of http-1.3-ext.

If anyone on the apache team would like my source files I would be happy to
mail them to you. I do not have anon ftp here nor do I wish to provide them to
everyone directly.

I had some bit of trouble because I didn't have the required regex.h file nor
the proper librx.a library but I got that all straightened out. I am running
this on a Sparc 2 SunOs 4.1.3_U1. Compiled it with gcc-2.6.3 and required
libg++-2.6.2/librx library.

It all seems to work like a charm.

References:

http://www.apache.org/apache
http://www-iwi.unisg.ch/~dlincke/httpd-ext.html

JP Freeley
http://www.brn.com

Re: patches offered... [ In reply to ]

Apr 24, 1995, 9:39 AM

Post #2 of 6 (1537 views)

From: Rob Hartill <hartill@ooo.lanl.gov>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 95 12:39:11 MDT

from c.i.www.providers

I was able to successfully compile and execute the Apache 0.6.2 server and add
to it the log extensions of http-1.3-ext.

Hmmm.. we ought to respond to this, but any response should probably
indicate that there's been some controversy in the group about whether
creating two separate new log files for these fields was actually the
right way to handle this...

rst

Re: patches offered... [ In reply to ]

Apr 24, 1995, 9:39 AM

Post #3 of 6 (1537 views)

From: Rob Hartill <hartill@ooo.lanl.gov>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 95 12:39:11 MDT

from c.i.www.providers

I was able to successfully compile and execute the Apache 0.6.2 server and add
to it the log extensions of http-1.3-ext.

Hmmm.. we ought to respond to this, but any response should probably
indicate that there's been some controversy in the group about whether
creating two separate new log files for these fields was actually the
right way to handle this...

rst

Re: patches offered... [ In reply to ]

brian at organic

Apr 26, 1995, 1:43 PM

Post #4 of 6 (1539 views)

On Mon, 24 Apr 1995, Robert S. Thau wrote:
> Hmmm.. we ought to respond to this, but any response should probably
> indicate that there's been some controversy in the group about whether
> creating two separate new log files for these fields was actually the
> right way to handle this...

Right, I'll respond if I don't see any other response when I get to that
thread.

Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

Re: patches offered... [ In reply to ]

brian at organic

Apr 26, 1995, 2:15 PM

Post #5 of 6 (1539 views)

On Wed, 26 Apr 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:
> Brian, now that comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix is alive and
> still quiet, it's probably worth putting your announcement in there.

My USENET capacity is completely fuct for the foreseeable future,
unfortunately. I sent Rob T. a response to the log file question posed
on providers to post.

Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

Re: patches offered... [ In reply to ]

Apr 26, 1995, 2:45 PM

Post #6 of 6 (1543 views)

Brian, now that comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix is alive and
still quiet, it's probably worth putting your announcement in there.