On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:05:34 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eugene
Geldenhuys) wrote:
>Hi
>
>Okay, I read the words, but I'm not sure that I fully understand the solution -
>correct me if I'm
>wrong:
>
>I configure apache with virtual hosts, this in the httpd.conf:
>NameVirtualHost 192.168.0.3:80
>Na
Hi
Okay, I read the words, but I'm not sure that I fully understand the solution -
correct me if I'm
wrong:
I configure apache with virtual hosts, this in the httpd.conf:
NameVirtualHost 192.168.0.3:80
NameVirtualHost 192.168.0.3:4555
ServerName www.domain.ext
DocumentRoot /www/domain
Serv
On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 03:11 US/Pacific, Eugene Geldenhuys wrote:
[..]
Thanks for the advice
I have looked at the items you mentioned - details in body of reply
[..]
will someone remind the drieux to have coffee,
I think the problem could well be the imfamous
problem of binding processes to
Thanks for the advice
I have looked at the items you mentioned - details in body of reply
On 12 Jun 2003 at 8:20, drieux wrote:
>
> On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 04:01 US/Pacific, Eugene Geldenhuys
> wrote: [..] > I have a small problem after upgrading a system from
> RH6.0 to RH9.0, my > apach
On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 04:01 US/Pacific, Eugene Geldenhuys wrote:
[..]
I have a small problem after upgrading a system from RH6.0 to RH9.0, my
apache web server went from version 1.3.6 to version 2.0.40. This in
itself
is probably a good thing, but a system management utility I wrote in
p
Hi all
I have a small problem after upgrading a system from RH6.0 to RH9.0, my
apache web server went from version 1.3.6 to version 2.0.40. This in itself
is probably a good thing, but a system management utility I wrote in perl
now will not execute system binaries unless I mark them srwxr-xr-
