On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> The security tips document is hardly our most stellar accomplishment. It
> would be really handy if we could get someone of the caliber of Ivan Ristic
> or Ben Laurie to overhaul it and bring it up to the realities of this
> century. While most
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Christopher Drost
wrote:
> After all, the FollowSymLinks attack allows any user to show anybody
> on the web the contents of your root folder with zero effort, and
> opens itself up to accidental abuses. The race condition attack looks
> relatively difficult and r
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 5:35 AM, Nilgün Belma Bugüner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to get your opinion and feedback on certain needs for
> pre-translation improvements. When I translate trunk documents and apply
> that translation to the relevant branches, I usually notice that
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Takashi Sato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any fixed rule for ?
>
> For example, a directive which is new feature of 2.2.
> In this situation some doc says "Available in 2.2(.0) and later."
> I believe it don't need to say it since the directive is avail
[Replying back to the docs list...]
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Jorge Schrauwen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thats fine,
>
> Any alternatives? Linking to them when they are on my server will pose the
> same problem that they are unreviewable.
> It's still a useful project to quickly manage th
Ummm... I'm just not comfortable having random zip files distributed
from the wiki. This is essentially unreviewable, and I'm going to
delete it.
(Based on his history here, I trust Jorge. But as a policy, I
pretty-sure we don't want to see zip files or other binaries on the
wiki.)
On Thu, May 1,
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not going to put this to a PMC vote because I think it is
> poisoness to the docs group to let a bunch of people who aren't
> participating in documentation development make decisions o
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, I've got way better things to
> do then this.
Whatever, Roy.
I'm not going to put this to a PMC vote because I think it is
poisoness to the docs group to let a bunch of people who aren't
participating in
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > What are you talking about Roy? I don't want to get into this
> > argument, but just checking one of the those three example sites (t
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > I know all these arguments, and I'm not going to get into them, except
> > to say that the vast majority of websites on the internet
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:04:09 -0400
> "Joshua Slive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Here is a rough cut
> > http://people.apache.org/~slive/httpd-site/docs/
> > The lin
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
>
> > Any objections to adopting the new www.apache.org site design? The
> > httpd site is looking a little dated, in my opinion.
> >
&
Any objections to adopting the new www.apache.org site design? The
httpd site is looking a little dated, in my opinion.
I'm not interested in getting into a long debate about the details of
the design. (Although people are welcome to play around after it is
committed.) I just grabbed exactly what
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:29:36 -0400
> Chris Pepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Vincent Bray wrote:
> > > On 17/04/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> +situation, e.g., adding the [PT] flag
> >
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26/03/2008, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would probably add it to the "caveat" section of /env.xml instead.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi docs@,
>
> The SetEnv directive cannot be used to set env vars for use by
> mod_rewrite or mod_setenvif because it runs after them both. My own
> testing and PR36908 confirm the 'issue'.
>
> Is this patch ok? I'm not
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Lucien GENTIS
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi ti all,
>
> trunk/misc/rewriteguide.* files have been deleted, but (broken) link in
> index is always here
I assume you are talking about misc/index.xml? I've removed that, thanks.
>
> (since I was translating rewri
On Dec 13, 2007 5:57 AM, Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:22:44 +
> "Vincent Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So I'm wondering what can be done about any of this. Perhaps:
> >
> > * Remove obsolete modules from the default build
> > * Reduce the size of the de
On 10/16/07, Falk Hackenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> some user of apache detect that
> if use AddType like
>
> AddType application/x-httpd-php .php
>
> that also files as
> foo.php.bar will be handeld as a application/x-httpd-php.
>
> He that this is handeld as DefaultType.
> I th
On 10/10/07, Tony Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Originally Sander was going to help me with the Infra@ part of getting
> this in place were we successful in getting it working. Sander you still
> up for helping with it?
Are you out there Sander?
I imagine this is something we could run
On 10/2/07, Tony Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good day one and all,
>
> With the threads [1] on dev@ discussing the end of 1.3 support,
> gathering some pace, I wanted to re-raise something that really bugs me
> just as I know it does other too.
>
> When going to http://httpd.apache.org/d
On 9/22/07, Michael Rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joshua Slive wrote:
> > > If a block does not contain a ServerName statement the
> > > hostname
> > > of the computer will be used.
> >
> > Not quite. It should be "Each block
On 9/22/07, Michael Rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd supply a patch, but I don't know which of:
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/mod/core.html#virtualhost
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/vhosts/name-based.html
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/vhosts/ ...
> is appropriate.
>
On 8/19/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, as this is my first go at producing a whole document, please
> don't be shy telling me what I've messed up. In particular I think I
> may have used too many nested section elements.
>
> In my trunk working copy, this file is
> docs/manua
On 8/16/07, Tony Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good day,
>
> Earlier today whilst reading through some of the infra@ postings I
> happened across a mail which was referring to another wiki platform that
> the ASF use. CWIKI.
I have no particular attachment to moinmoin (or wikis in genera
On 8/9/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wrote http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/RewriteVirtualHandler with the
> intention of answering common questions that are typically answered
> with mod_rewrite solutions, without needing mod_rewrite. The two
> examples using Action:
>
>
>
Got to figure out some way to work this into the docs ;-)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apelad/sets/72157594388426362/detail/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8/9/07, Vincent de Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe on a sidenote: Shouldn't somebody have a look at docs/STATUS and
> update or delete it?
Yes. Although, in reality, docs development has been pretty slow for
the last couple years, so the STATUS file isn't all that far from
accurate, I i
On 8/2/07, Tony Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Crikey,
>
> That has just confirmed it, I think I will move to doing all my edits on
> my linux box instead. I always check, but those entries do not appear
> in my editor.
>
> However, it may also be Tortoise that is screwing them up.
It's p
On 8/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -
> +
Windows editor magic?
Joshua.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8/1/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the minimum, I plan to notate "reverse-proxy (e.g. gateway server)"
> liberally throughout the explanation pages of the module and guides.
Definite +1 on that.
Joshua.
---
On 8/1/07, jean-frederic clere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any comments before I commit that?
I'm not sure I see the point.
The example is just reiterating the default configuration. But, as
Vincent mentions, that is needed in some cases and is useful for
showing the influences reverse proxies.
On 7/31/07, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 2007, at 13:50, Eric Covener wrote:
>
> > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/mod/mod_access.html#order
> >
> > The paragraphs for Deny,Allow and Allow,Deny are (still?) swapped?
>
> It is actually correct. However, it is explained in th
On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Compatibility: The cookie-flag is available in Apache 2.0.40 and later
.. seems fairly irrelevant, given [H] and whatever other new tricks
RewriteRule has learned since then.
You've opened the barrel-of-worms we call mod_rewrite and you ex
On 7/23/07, André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not that easy. I think, explaining the start (URL-path, absolute in server
context but relative to the .htaccess in directory context) and mentioning
the "current" part for further matches should do.
I don't think you want to get too complicate
On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While I'm on a bit of a roll, I'll mention that subject that strikes
fear in to the hearts of intrepid geeks, mod_rewrite and its docs.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42898
The url in the PR is for 1.3 but trunk has the same
On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 23/07/07, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Any objections to this before I backport it for 2.x? It follows from
> > this thread:
> >
>
On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 23/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Author: noodl
> Date: Mon Jul 23 06:31:19 2007
> New Revision: 558718
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=558718
> Log:
> Demote use of AddType for cgi and remove redunda
On 7/22/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 22/07/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fixed in trunk and 2.2, thanks. Looks like somebody beat me to it with 2.0 :-)
Ok, so I wasn't beaten too it, I just had another mislabeled WC for
2.2. I've committed this to 2.0 too now, b
On 7/19/07, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 19, 2007, at 11:32, Joshua Slive wrote:
> On 7/17/07, Vincent Deffontaines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Reviewing the french translation of
>> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/new_
On 7/17/07, Vincent Deffontaines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings,
Reviewing the french translation of
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/new_features_2_2.html, I have found near
the bottom of the original, english text (paragraph "Regular expression
API changes") :
"Calls to regcomp, regexec
On 7/16/07, Francois Gingras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe the point of this section is to provide a complete example for
those folks who can't seem to be able to put together a working
configuration from various examples.
While it does seem very vague and hard to grasp in a glance, it wo
On 7/16/07, Jorge Schrauwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This page was proposed on IRC,
It is a place to point people to who are looking for examples on how
to set up certain things.
That is exactly what the "Recipes" section of the wiki is supposed to do.
This is still very WIP and a whole lot
On 7/16/07, Apache Wiki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Httpd Wiki" for change
notification.
The following page has been changed by jmcg:
http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/BasicConfigExample
The comment on the change is:
Added a ba
On 7/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fair enough. But, the way it is now, it's not really an index page.
There's no guarantee that a person adding an entry to the log section will
update this aggregate as well and vice versa. It seems like it's something
that would get out of
On 7/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure how useful that aggregate would be. By rici's argument, the
user would still need to search for his issue on that page to get to the
right link anyway. If we want to make things easy to get to for the user
then really, an aggre
I don't like the whole scratch-pad idea. It seems like documents will
wind up living there forever since there are no criteria to move
things in or out. Plus any time something does move in or out, the URL
gets changed. I hate changing URLs.
I suggest just creating the page in its correct locatio
On 7/1/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
mod/mod_cgi.xml has in the first sentence:
Any file that has the mime type application/x-httpd-cgi or handler
cgi-script (Apache 1.1 or later) will be treated as a CGI script,
Can we remove the reference to the mime type, given that this h
On 6/26/07, Tony Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey,
A day or so ago I committed a change to /trunk/content-negotiation(.xml
and .html.en)
These have been updated in SVN, as I can compare the working copy with
my local copy and they match. However those changes have not been
reflected
On 6/15/07, Tony Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Please find attached a Patch for
/httpd/site/trunk/xdocs/docs-project/index.xml
This basically includes names for both myself, and Vincent Bray (noodl)
I didn't want to commit this right off the bat without checking first.
Hey there may
On 6/14/07, Tony Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, once it has come through I'll pester you so we can get started.
Have we reached the decision that we should be using solr, over Google?
Yes. If we have people interested in putting the time in to give it a
go (that would be you and Sand
On 6/13/07, Sander Temme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, at 5:35 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
> If you want to take that on Tony, I'm fine with that too. But you need
> to realize that a lot of the work is going to be figuring out how to
> get this to inter
On 6/13/07, Tony Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I tell you what, once a decision has been made I would be very happy to
take this on as my first task. (Above and beyond patching, of course).
Is there a case for trialling so called 'rival' products in a bid to
ascertain their suitability for
On 6/13/07, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With our current search box, all the revenue is going to google.
I take that back. Google isn't currently running adds on our searches
it appears. But I believe they have the right to do so.
Anyway, with CSE they explicitl
On 6/13/07, Sander Temme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rich Bowen wrote:
> I wonder, also, whether it would be possible to run solr, since it's
> actually an Apache project. However, having never had any success
> getting it working on my own servers, that might be a can of worms.
Firmly +1 on dog
It would be nice to replace the current hacked-up google search of our
docs with a proper "custom search engine" from google. The problem is
that custom search engines are tied to specific google accounts, and I
don't think it is a good idea for any single person to have control
over the config.
On 5/31/07, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:29:34AM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
> Could this all be done in the official docs? Sure. Will it get done
> there? I doubt it. This type of documentation (example configs solving
> particular problems)
On 5/30/07, Vinko Vrsalovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Didn't know that... but I did a quick test:
> >
> > RewriteRule /path/[^/]+ http://google.com
> >
> > and when accessing http://
On 5/30/07, Vinko Vrsalovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > {{{
> > - RewriteRule ^/path/(\w+)/(\w+) /path?$1=$2
> > + RewriteRule ^/path/([^/]+)/([^/]+) /path?$1=$2
> > }}}
>
> I don't have a particular problem with that, but it is highly unlikely
> to work if anything outside the \w charact
On 5/30/07, Apache Wiki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Httpd Wiki" for change
notification.
The following page has been changed by VinkoVrsalovic:
http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/Recipes/QueryString
The comment on the change is:
On 5/30/07, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 05:31:49PM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
> By the way, I assume you are talking about the reference docs. The
> "practical solutions" docs should be transferred to the wiki along
> with Rich's s
On 5/29/07, Webmaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cool, so how do I go about doing that?
-AskApache
> Yes, your account was disabled. If you want it re-enabled,
> you'd need to convince us (the Apache HTTP Server Project
> Management Committee) that you will abide by the guidelines here:
> http:
On 5/29/07, Webmaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Was my wiki account (AskApache) deleted? I can't login or get the wiki to
mail me my account data.
Yes, your account was disabled. If you want it re-enabled, you'd need
to convince us (the Apache HTTP Server Project Management Committee)
that yo
On 5/29/07, Tony Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok,
After my last few patches lacked the necessary gusto to be comitted (due
to my less than perfect English),
I think it is more just a question of nobody getting around to it.
Obviously that needs to change.
I have been plugging away on
On 5/25/07, Jorge Schrauwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Personally i was very happy with the form it had on revision 7.
If you remove it thats fine but I'd rather see it go back to revision 7.
I've combined Jorge and Ruediger's suggestions to leave just a few of
the most common status codes and
On 5/24/07, Webmaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I've never used this list so bear with me,
The main point here is that you need to be ready to accept and act on
feedback from more-experienced contributors. If you aren't, then you
aren't welcome as a contributor.
Perhaps part of the pr
On 5/24/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[for infra, who is bcc'ed - three * bullets below]
* ask infra to reopen the wiki to general write access,
* aks infra to please revoke AskApache/their ip from the httpd wiki.
+1.
---
On 5/24/07, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 24, 2007, at 04:23, Tony Stevenson wrote:
>>
> AskApache has had several email conversations with both myself, and
> Rich. In which he was asked politely, but firmly to not use links
> to content on his site.
NOTE: NOT because external
On 5/24/07, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 5/24/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We have a serious issue to determine, and I've asked for a 48 hour cooldown
> > of wiki.apache.org/httpd/ to make a de
The faq has been essentially abandoned. I know that I personally don't
touch it because I find adding a quick question/answer is too much
work. I don't know what others think, but the evidence is that nobody
feels like supporting it.
I suggest deleting the current faq and leaving only a simple pa
On 3/29/07, Kundai A. Midzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can someone confirm whether the following is a bug? It seems that the
description the first two Order Directives is reversed.
This has already been fixed.
Joshua.
-
To u
It makes me feel like an idiot that we screwed this up after all that
debate and review. But if someone has a chance to fix this, it would
be great:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41826
-
To unsubscribe, e-mai
On 3/4/07, Russ Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"I notice it says bad key, not bad signature. Interesting.
It's a web of trust, now that you trust me, you trust those who's keys
I've signed. Since you trusted nobody, you had no trust link to me.
The instructions probably deserve another l
On 1/30/07, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The change I made was a result of a user in #apache getting confused
about the default vhost part. He already had a default vhost (debian
config) and didn't want to edit it to redirect non-canonical hostnames
for a single vhost. This makes sens
On 11/27/06, Chris Pepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does require the filename for directives which
are in the same file? I'm specifically looking at Allow/Deny/Order
If I remember correctly, the filename is necessary if you want a link.
The non-filename form will style it like a direc
On 11/10/06, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/10/06, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/10/06, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/install.html
> >
> > Is "Apache HTTPd
On 11/10/06, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/install.html
Is "Apache HTTPd" an old name now? It's used in multiple places in
this document in contrast to "Apache HTTP Server".
We've never really settled on how we refer to it in the docs. I find
"Ap
On 11/8/06, Chris Pepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 9:40 AM -0500 2006/11/08, Joshua Slive wrote:
>On 11/4/06, Chris Pepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Note that Allow and Deny directives are processed in
>>ascending order, unlike a typical firewall, where
On 11/4/06, Chris Pepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note that Allow and Deny directives are processed in
ascending order, unlike a typical firewall, where only the
first match counts.
That's all fine with me. But I really don't find "in ascending order"
to mean anything in particular. Is tha
On 11/8/06, Lars Eilebrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
According to Chris:
> Is it a known and accepted fact that FancyIndexing generates
> invalid HTML? FancyIndexing puts invalid tags inside the block.
> I'm inclined to report it, but perhaps it's accepted for improved
> appearance. If
On 11/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... lots of problem
Thanks for clarifying the spaces. State's fine.
> "Clients are allowed access if they do not match any Deny directive
or they do match an Allow directive."
This language is a rehash of the old language. Logically,
On 11/3/06, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 3, 2006, at 15:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here are some proposed definitions:
>
> Order Allow, Deny: Initially a flag for each incoming URL is set
> to Deny. Then all Allow directives (i.e. "Allow foobar.org") are
> applied follow
A wiki for user-contributed documentation has recently been setup for
the Apache web server at
http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/
Feel free to contribute your tips and tricks. To edit pages you need
to create an account and login.
Please note that this wiki is experimental at the moment. It may
cha
On 10/28/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + ***Note*** If you get proxy forbidden errors in your error log,
> you can add the following code block below and restart Apache to
> try to fix the error.
> +
> + {{{
> + Order deny,allow
> + Allow from all
> +
> + }}}
Shouldn't t
On 10/13/06, Jeff McAdams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Basically all it does is replace " " with " ". For some
reason, Firefox doesn't seem to find the entity definition for " ".
It is my understanding (based on possibly-faulty long-term memory)
that we define certain entities in external dtds.
On 9/22/06, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This has come up before, so no doubt some folks have already made up
their minds, having seen the subject line.
I don't have any problem with this, as long as there is one other
person (in addition to you) who will actively follow the wikidiffs.
On 8/30/06, Stephen Shirley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
(This concerns apache2.0, i've no idea if the other versions are affected too.)
I've discovered something that the vhosting docs don't seem to cover.
If you want to use both mod_vhost_alias (VirtualDocumentRoot et al)
and normal name-ba
On 8/8/06, Tony Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I am looking at the FAQ for 2.2, and looking back at the old 1.3 version
for a comparison.
I will submit some patches and updates for the 2.2 version shortly, but I
wanted to gauge opinion first.
I like the way that the 1.3 FAQ w
There were some questions about why a 2.2.2 version of the apache
httpd docs was not available as a pdf file. I finally found time to
generate one, which is now at
http://apache.org/dist/httpd/docs/
and will be available from the mirrors shortly at:
http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/httpd/docs
On 6/29/06, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> I understand your reasoning, but I'd prefer not. I don't think there
> are enough doc bugs to justify another list. As an alternative, we
Currently that are about 5% of all bugs (just us
On 6/29/06, Vincent Deffontaines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings,
The 2.2.2 documentation files seem to be tidied as in 2.0, ie, play with
Type Maps to negotiate content with clients, all translated versions of
a given file living in the same directory.
However, the hypertext links seem to
On 6/29/06, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just spoke with some people of the httpd-docs project and found out
that they are either not subscribed to bugs@httpd.apache.org or do
not have time to look through the mails. I fully understand this as
1. Most stuff is not about documentat
On 6/27/06, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joshua Slive wrote:
> That is FAR more important than
> the fact that having /docs/something map to 1.3 is not "pretty" from a
> visual perspective.
No, it has nothing whatever to do with looking pretty. It h
On 6/27/06, Noirin Plunkett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 09:48:56AM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> Any other solution would result in MANY broken links (due to changes
> in doc structure, not to mention the fact that some people still
> really do want
On 6/27/06, Hiroaki Kawai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does the server redirect /docs to /docs/1.3 now?
I tried to access http://httpd.apache.org/docs/ and got a
list of documentations for each version.
# Do I miss something?
Right. We already delt with this. The generic /docs/ goes to a list.
Looks good. A few nitpicks below.
On 6/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+C|chain
+The [C] or [chain] flag indicates that the RewriteRule is chained to the next
+rule. That is, if the rule matches, then it is processed as usual and
+control moves on to the next rule. However,
On 6/11/06, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33656
In response to this bug and the countless questions asked on #apache,
I'd like to find some way to make /vhosts/name-based.html more
explicit. The text currently states "The argument to
On 6/11/06, Sander Temme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Folks,
Do we have a backport policy for documentation? I specifically would
like to backport r409455 from trunk to 2.2.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/
mod_proxy.xml?r1=395228&r2=409455
The policy is: fire awa
On 6/11/06, Vincent Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Apologies for my repeated messages earlier.
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/caching.html#security contains
"Authorisation, Access & and Control". What should that be?
Authorisation and Access Control?
Should be "Authorisation, Authentica
On 6/11/06, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I need a little assistance, in the hopes that someone can save me a lot
of research time.
The document in question is:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/stopping.html#race (just the "Appendix"
part).
1 - 100 of 759 matches
Mail list logo
