[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#230539: apache: SEGV when Including itself (recursive Include) -> will only be fixed in 2.1



clone 230539 -1
reassign -1 apache2-common
retitle -1 [upstream: fixed in 2.1] SEGV when Including itself (recursive Include)
retitle 230539 [upstream: will only be fixed in 2.1] SEGV when Including itself (recursive Include)
tags 230539 + help
thanks

On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 06:14:00AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> Hi,
> 	an official answer from upstream regarding this bug can be found
> here:
> 
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26575
> 
> In a few word upstream cannot fix this problem for apache1.3 and it is
> fixed in apache2.1.
> 
> Since there is no tag cantfix I would like to know what to do with the
> debian related bug.

I've put my opinion at the top of the bug: for apache 1.3, this is a
help, as:
- it is a bug
- but for apache 1.3, upstream won't do the work of fixing it.
- For the Debian apache maintainers, this is understandably not
  something they will spend much time on backporting the fix to
  apache1.3, as it is still a minor bug, and might be tricky to backport
  due to changes 1.3 vs 2
- But if somebody else decides to backport it, well, I guess apache
  maintainers would accept the patch.
- So, tagging as help, by which you indicate you're not going to fix
  this on your own. I considered 'wontfix', but this isn't a case where
  apache maintainters are not not* willing to fix it, but they are just
  not able to do so in reasonable time. Thus, help.

* intentional double negotiation

I assume if patches are supplied, it will be fixed. For the record, this
bug is too minor for me to spend too much time on, so I'm not going to
do it, and I'm happy leaving this bug open for apache 1.3 until somebody
decides to fix it (or not), especially since apache 2 will be fixed.

--Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl



Reply to: