Re: [us...@httpd] 2.2.10 -> 2.2.11

2009-06-07 Thread MK
On 06/06/2009 07:47:35 AM, André Warnier wrote: > Taking it from here, and one tiny step at a time. > (Sorry to be httpd-101 kind of level, but it pays to be really > systematic) No, please do. I have never paid much attention to apache and am totally ignorant about it. There really seems to b

Re: [us...@httpd] 2.2.10 -> 2.2.11

2009-06-06 Thread André Warnier
MK wrote: On 06/05/2009 07:46:47 PM, Res wrote: There is a myriad of build options, you'll need to A: (fastest) Look at the repository for the source version, then look at how they built apache and make sure you built the same You mean how the stock FC10 was built? Considering I am using "t

Re: [us...@httpd] 2.2.10 -> 2.2.11

2009-06-06 Thread MK
On 06/05/2009 07:46:47 PM, Res wrote: > There is a myriad of build options, you'll need to > A: (fastest) > Look at the repository for the source version, then look at how > they built apache and make sure you built the same You mean how the stock FC10 was built? Considering I am using "the" a

Re: [us...@httpd] 2.2.10 -> 2.2.11

2009-06-05 Thread Res
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, MK wrote: However, all my CGI files are now unable to write a log or db *anywhere*. I modified the http.conf to match my previous one ("Allow all"), but this did not make any difference. SELinux is disabled on my system. There is a myriad of build options, you'll need to

[us...@httpd] 2.2.10 -> 2.2.11

2009-06-05 Thread MK
I use apache at home doing light weight "web development" stuff and to serve little CGI utility apps I've written. Recently I started working with ruby on rails and wanted to install passenger. The apache development headers are required for this, but I could not locate an "httpd-devel" rpm f