Re: Apache2 bugs status
On 1/21/06, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> wrote:
> Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > On 1/21/06, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> wrote:
> >> Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> [..]
> >>> A lot of those bugs are quite old and some appear to be trivial to
> >>> fix, but they don't have a single response from you.
> >>> Could you please tell why?
> >> Most likely because the bugs are non-issues and should simply be closed.
> >
> > Really? Interesting. Why do you think they are non-issues?
>
> See below...
>
> >> Which bug report exactly seems to cause problems for you?
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=341022
>
> As stated in the bug report, a configerror that happens _after_ the
> 'administrator' has modified it.
Like I stated in the bug report, that still doesn't make the vhost
conf the right place for that directive.
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=267477
>
> There is no 'simple' way of doing this, especially as people who want
And why is that?
Lots of additional steps can be automated.
> SSL either need to create a snakeoil certificate or want to use their
> own. It can't be automated, people should simply read the documentation,
> which is already included.
>
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=289868
>
> As marked by ASF: Invalid bug.
As the ASF said, the Debian conf is not the same as the upstream conf,
so the ASF's resolution doesn't apply to Debian.
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=291841
>
> Ever ran a log analysis program?
No, is that relevant?
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=325594
>
> Just kill the old one, start the new one.
That's a work around, not a solution.
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=338472
>
> Both /server-info and /server-status are commented out.
> If somebody wants to enable them they can also stick them
> directly in the virtualhost they want.
>
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=349016
>
> Wishlist item.
And those don't reserve any response?
> Any bugs which are deadly and critical except for the fact that you
> don't want to read documentation a bit?
Why do bugs need to be deadly or critical?
Reply to: