-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Protect the whole directory.
Do that, and you break all our webapp ebuilds.
Best regards,
Stu
- --
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Developer http://dev.gen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jason Wever wrote:
| That could be handled via some CONFIG_PROTECT foo (unless someone has a
| more suitable method in mind)
If I catch anyone trying to add CONFIG_PROTECT to
/var/www/localhost/htdocs, I'll happily break their fingers. Portage's
concep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Actually not as for example an index.html could override my index.php. Even
worse, the index html file does not need to be called index.html either but
the name might be configured in either the apache config f
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:28:05 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Monday 11 April 2005 20:07, Jason Wever wrote:
| > That could be handled via some CONFIG_PROTECT foo (unless someone
| > has a more suitable method in mind)
|
| Actually not as for example an index.html could overrid
On Monday 11 April 2005 20:07, Jason Wever wrote:
> That could be handled via some CONFIG_PROTECT foo (unless someone has a
> more suitable method in mind)
Actually not as for example an index.html could override my index.php. Even
worse, the index html file does not need to be called index.html
On Monday 11 April 2005 7:55 pm, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Jason Wever wrote:
> | And why would we not want to present the default Apache index.html to our
> | users?
>
> Installing anything as a default page into /var/www/localhost/htdocs/ is
> dangerous. If the Apache install is an u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Stuart Herbert wrote:
Jason Wever wrote:
| And why would we not want to present the default Apache index.html to our
| users?
Installing anything as a default page into /var/www/localhost/htdocs/ is
dangerous. If the Apache insta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Jason,
Jason Wever wrote:
| And why would we not want to present the default Apache index.html to our
| users?
Installing anything as a default page into /var/www/localhost/htdocs/ is
dangerous. If the Apache install is an upgrade, the default page
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:38:51 +0200
Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> current upstream page just sais "It works!". That's indeed not
> what we want to present the Gentoo Apache Users.
So the page that was there previous to this change was not the default?
And why would we not want t
On Sunday 10 April 2005 7:18 pm, Jason Wever wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:43:13 +0200
>
> Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of course, we did not wanna push nearly-everyones little blindly
> > executed `emerge -uvD world` into hell. But everyone makes mistakes, so
> > including m
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:43:13 +0200
Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, we did not wanna push nearly-everyones little blindly
> executed `emerge -uvD world` into hell. But everyone makes mistakes, so
> including me. sorry for that, though, we got almost every complain
> fixe
On Sunday 10 April 2005 4:55 pm, Brian Jackson wrote:
> How about not breaking apache?
We did not break apache, we broke *binary compatibility* within apache.
Are you aware of *why* we decided to break binary compatibility?
Well, if not, I can say we did so to provide LFS to the end-users.
You mi
How about not breaking apache? I was a little beyond pissed when I had
to sit there for 2 hours trying to figure out why my apache was broken,
and who was going to get put on my list of being kicked in the junk.
Just for some stupid config file changes. I find it very hard to believe
you guys could
Hi guys,
refering to [1] and [2] I must see, that we've been in testing phase for quite
a long time now. Our eclass' changes reflect only to masked and/or testing
ebuilds, though, marking stable ebuilds somewhat obsolete.
Although, apache httpd is bumping 2.0.54 very soon and our latest *stable
14 matches
Mail list logo
