Sorry didn't have Gmail synced! :-)
El 27 jun. 2017 12:59 a. m., "Nigel Peck"
escribió:
> On 26/06/2017 17:58, Daniel wrote:
>
>> Nigel, either I misunderstood you but Redirect redirects everything after
>> the matched part and appends the rest to the target
>>
>
> Yes, agreed, it was by mistak
On 26/06/2017 17:58, Daniel wrote:
Nigel, either I misunderstood you but Redirect redirects everything
after the matched part and appends the rest to the target
Yes, agreed, it was by mistake, Daniel. See subsequent emails from Eric.
Nigel
-
Nigel, either I misunderstood you but Redirect redirects everything after
the matched part and appends the rest to the target
So the first example does the same as the second, it was just missing a
trailing slash.
El 26 jun. 2017 11:58 p. m., "Nigel Peck"
escribió:
> On 26/06/2017 16:56, Felipe
On 26/06/2017 17:00, Eric Covener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Nigel Peck wrote:
They wouldn't redirect in the same way, but it would be the same type of
redirect. Since the second one preserves the page on the site that it is
redirecting, which is a very big difference.
That's not
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> That's not correct. Redirect carries the URL over [modulo the
> trailing slash issue Daniel caught]. RedirectMatch doesn't
Unless you explicitly use a capture/backreference, of course.
---
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Nigel Peck wrote:
> They wouldn't redirect in the same way, but it would be the same type of
> redirect. Since the second one preserves the page on the site that it is
> redirecting, which is a very big difference.
That's not correct. Redirect carries the URL ove
On 26/06/2017 16:56, Felipe Pereira wrote:
Yes. In the second line you could use R=permanent or R=301 so they
would redirect the same way.
They wouldn't redirect in the same way, but it would be the same type of
redirect. Since the second one preserves the page on the site that it is
redirect
2017-06-26 17:08 GMT-03:00 Nigel Peck :
>
> Sorry, one other point, using `[R]` in number two will generate a 302
> redirect whereas the first, using the permanent keyword, will generate a 301
Yes. In the second line you could use R=permanent or R=301 so they
would redirect the same way.
http:/
Sorry, one other point, using `[R]` in number two will generate a 302
redirect whereas the first, using the permanent keyword, will generate a
301.
On 26/06/2017 15:07, Nigel Peck wrote:
Also note that the first one will always redirect to the root of the
target domain, but the second one
Also note that the first one will always redirect to the root of the
target domain, but the second one will redirect to the same page on the
target domain.
First one:
(taking Daniel's comment in to account)
/example redirects to http://www.domain.com/
Second one:
/example redirects to http
Note the first one (the redirect) will probably redirect incorrectly,
target should end with a trailing slash.
Golden rule: if souce ends in trailing slash, target must also end in
trailing slash.
2017-06-26 21:23 GMT+02:00 Eric Covener :
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:16 PM, David Mehler wrote:
>>
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:16 PM, David Mehler wrote:
> I'm using apache 2.4. What is the difference between these lines?
>
> Redirect permanent / http://www.domain.com
> RewriteRule ^/?(.*) http://www.domain.com/$1 [R,L]
Nothing really, when you add the 'R' flag you're asking mod_rewrite to
r
Hello,
I'm using apache 2.4. What is the difference between these lines?
Redirect permanent / http://www.domain.com
RewriteRule ^/?(.*) http://www.domain.com/$1 [R,L]
They both redirect.
Thanks.
Dave.
-
To unsubscribe, e-ma
Hi Nick,
hmm. Maybe I am loosing my eyesight... I looked at both
http://www.apache.org/dist/apr/CHANGES-APR-1.6 and
http://www.apache.org/dist/apr/CHANGES-APR-UTIL-1.6
and find no mentioning of expat or its removal from the packages. But that
is the change-log and I now find it on the apr home
On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 10:55 +0200, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
> So my question now is - was the removal of expat from apr-util
> intentional? I see no mentioning in the release notes.
The perils of bundling! It is indeed clear in the release notes
for the APR 1.6 twins, where it even mentions tha
Hi William,
thanks. Installing "libexpat-devel-2.0.1-88.26.1" on this SLES11 system
made httpd build again. Just that I do not like to rely on that kind of
stuff. The old behavior of apr-util-1.5.4 was just more convenient :-(
Actually never made me realize that "libexpat" is needed.
Cheers
Mart
Hi Eric,
sure this works, but it adds an additional dependency (same with relying
on the system installed version). When expat was bundled with apr-util I
never had to do anything special about it. Likely I never realized that
dependency. So, apr-util-1.6.0 surprised me by breaking a year old bui
17 matches
Mail list logo
