Thread View: alt.os.linux.slackware
8 messages
8 total messages
Started by phil-new...@ipal
Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:04
9.0-beta needs apache 1.3.27
Author: phil-new...@ipal
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:04
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:04
12 lines
442 bytes
442 bytes
The -current ... 9.0-beta to some ... needs apache 1.3.27. It currently only has 1.3.26 which has some issues fixed in 1.3.27: http://www.apacheweek.com/features/security-13 -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | | phil-...@ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Re: 9.0-beta needs apache 1.3.27
Author: AthlonRob
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:26
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:26
25 lines
818 bytes
818 bytes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 3 Dec 2002 07:04:56 GMT, phil-new...@ipal.net <phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote: > The -current ... 9.0-beta to some ... needs apache 1.3.27. > It currently only has 1.3.26 which has some issues fixed > in 1.3.27: > > http://www.apacheweek.com/features/security-13 If you feel strongly about it... doncha think you should email Pat? Nobody here has any power to change anything in Slackware.... - -- Rob | If not safe, Email and Jabber: | one can never be free. athlonrob at data dot 4t3 dot com | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Key ID 0x838E01ED - Available from www.keyserver.net iD8DBQE97Okyhm6KEoOOAe0RAr0rAJ94LWwn0299sEpQsM9RptPKZR5+3ACfcie0 dsgoCAM286fmp75LkVn+Qmk=pVcO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: 9.0-beta needs apache 1.3.27
Author: /dev/rob0
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:53
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:53
19 lines
626 bytes
626 bytes
In article <asnh2...@enews1.newsguy.com>, phil-new...@ipal.net wrote: >| Nobody here has any power to change anything in Slackware.... > > I thought this group was now used in lieu of the defunct Slackware > forums. There is not and has never been any official connection between this newsgroup and Slackware. > So Pat wants all these things in email now? AFAIK it's the only way to reach him. There is no reason to think he is reading here, nor that he ever did. (You could ask him, I guess.) -- /dev/rob0 - preferred_email=i$((28*28+28))@softhome.net or put "not-spam" or "/dev/rob0" in Subject header to reply
Re: 9.0-beta needs apache 1.3.27
Author: phil-new...@ipal
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 12:33
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 12:33
21 lines
876 bytes
876 bytes
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:26:08 -0800 AthlonRob <athlonrob@nodomainhere.ext> wrote: | On 3 Dec 2002 07:04:56 GMT, phil-new...@ipal.net <phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote: |> The -current ... 9.0-beta to some ... needs apache 1.3.27. |> It currently only has 1.3.26 which has some issues fixed |> in 1.3.27: |> |> http://www.apacheweek.com/features/security-13 | | If you feel strongly about it... doncha think you should email Pat? | Nobody here has any power to change anything in Slackware.... I thought this group was now used in lieu of the defunct Slackware forums. So Pat wants all these things in email now? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | | phil-...@ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Re: 9.0-beta needs apache 1.3.27
Author: Alan Hicks
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:47
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:47
12 lines
623 bytes
623 bytes
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 02:04:56 -0500, phil-news-nospam wrote: > The -current ... 9.0-beta to some ... needs apache 1.3.27. It currently > only has 1.3.26 which has some issues fixed in 1.3.27: Since Rob's already set you right about e-mailing this to Pat if you feel strongly about it, I thought I'd ask if anyone else feels strongly one way or another about moving to Apache 2.0? I've done it myself on a couple boxes and it seems very stable. I haven't noticed any large performance benefit or penalty however. The apache people recommend 2.0 over 1.3, but has anyone else noticed a reason to move slackware to 2.0?
Re: 9.0-beta needs apache 1.3.27
Author: Brad Clarke
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 00:40
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 00:40
17 lines
828 bytes
828 bytes
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:47:49 -0500, Alan Hicks <al...@custom-consulting.com> wrote: >>On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 02:04:56 -0500, phil-news-nospam wrote: >> >>> The -current ... 9.0-beta to some ... needs apache 1.3.27. It currently >>> only has 1.3.26 which has some issues fixed in 1.3.27: >> >>Since Rob's already set you right about e-mailing this to Pat if you feel >>strongly about it, I thought I'd ask if anyone else feels strongly one >>way or another about moving to Apache 2.0? I've done it myself on a >>couple boxes and it seems very stable. I haven't noticed any large >>performance benefit or penalty however. The apache people recommend 2.0 >>over 1.3, but has anyone else noticed a reason to move slackware to 2.0? Isn't there still the issue that some popular modules (mod_php?) do not yet work with Apache 2.0?
Re: 9.0-beta needs apache 1.3.27
Author: Jurgen Philippae
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:15
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:15
25 lines
600 bytes
600 bytes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 12:40:34AM +0000, Brad Clarke wrote: > Isn't there still the issue that some popular modules (mod_php?) do not > yet work with Apache 2.0? i know that i'm not even concidering to try apache 2.0 before php support is supported, and stable. Jurgen. - -- They are laughing at me, not with me. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE98LAi1ucXIiwNwbURAqPWAKDH2Pxn0VzEa8V9u3gctLBYrpNyiQCfWhjb GVvF812fp8dKzzxd8lIaqqM=VwN9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: 9.0-beta needs apache 1.3.27
Author: Brad Clarke
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 01:08
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 01:08
19 lines
503 bytes
503 bytes
On 6 Dec 2002 14:15:38 GMT, Jurgen Philippaerts <jurgen@see.my.pgp.key> wrote: >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >>On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 12:40:34AM +0000, Brad Clarke wrote: >> >>> Isn't there still the issue that some popular modules (mod_php?) do not >>> yet work with Apache 2.0? >> >>i know that i'm not even concidering to try apache 2.0 before php >>support is supported, and stable. Same here. I only use PHP for phpMyAdmin, but that is a critical web app for me. Brad
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads