[Marcos Torres Marado]
> Shouldn't this bug be marked as closed?
While the existing fix works, it's not quite in its final form. We
were waiting for someone to test my preferred patch. Now that he's
done so, we'll use that and close the bug.
Thanks,
Peter
signature.asc
Description: Digital s
* H. S. Teoh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061219 18:39]:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:55:39AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> [...]
> > I uploaded packages for this architecture now on
> > http://people.debian.org/~aba/apr/ - the changes-file is signed by me
> > so that you know it was really me.
> [...]
>
Hi there,
Shouldn't this bug be marked as closed?
Best regards,
--
Marcos Marado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sonaecom ISP
$ perl
''=~('(?{'.('^)@@*@'^'.[).^`').'"'.('`@@[EMAIL
PROTECTED]//[*;)@`//)@|'^'-).[`<@@(^^[`.@@[)^').',$/})')
^Z
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:55:39AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
[...]
> I uploaded packages for this architecture now on
> http://people.debian.org/~aba/apr/ - the changes-file is signed by me
> so that you know it was really me.
[...]
I just tested it. It works flawlessly!
I'm not sure why buildi
[H. S. Teoh]
> i686. But it runs on a modified kernel that my colo provider uses for
> running virtual servers. I'm not sure if this makes a difference in
> the build. All I did was `apt-get source libapr1`, copy the new patch
> into debian/patches, and run `dpkg-buildpackage -r fakeroot`.
It mak
* H. S. Teoh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061219 06:49]:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 12:46:52AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * H. S. Teoh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061218 19:39]:
> > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 05:53:38PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [H. S. Teoh]
> > > > > Hi, the old patch (cu
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 12:46:52AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * H. S. Teoh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061218 19:39]:
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 05:53:38PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > >
> > > [H. S. Teoh]
> > > > Hi, the old patch (currently in unstable) already works---my test was
> > > > inva
* H. S. Teoh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061218 19:39]:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 05:53:38PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> >
> > [H. S. Teoh]
> > > Hi, the old patch (currently in unstable) already works---my test was
> > > invalid because I upgraded apache2 but forgot to upgrade libapr1. Do
> > > you
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 05:53:38PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [H. S. Teoh]
> > Hi, the old patch (currently in unstable) already works---my test was
> > invalid because I upgraded apache2 but forgot to upgrade libapr1. Do
> > you still want me to test the new patch?
>
> Ahh - great to hear
[H. S. Teoh]
> Hi, the old patch (currently in unstable) already works---my test was
> invalid because I upgraded apache2 but forgot to upgrade libapr1. Do
> you still want me to test the new patch?
Ahh - great to hear! Yes, If it's convenient for you, please do test
my new patch. It's a little
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 10:42:21PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [H. S. Teoh]
> > Hi, the fix for #396631 to libapr1 does not work. Apache2 still
> > serves 0 bytes when running on a 2.4 kernel (on my virtual colo
> > host). Please look into this problem. Thanks!
>
> My old patch is slightly
[H. S. Teoh]
> Hi, the fix for #396631 to libapr1 does not work. Apache2 still
> serves 0 bytes when running on a 2.4 kernel (on my virtual colo
> host). Please look into this problem. Thanks!
My old patch is slightly buggy - can you try rebuilding apr 1.2.7-8.1
with this updated version of debi
reopen 396631
thanks
Hi, the fix for #396631 to libapr1 does not work. Apache2 still serves 0
bytes when running on a 2.4 kernel (on my virtual colo host). Please
look into this problem. Thanks!
T
--
Not all rumours are as misleading as this one.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
13 matches
Mail list logo
