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

Re: Roxen 1.4 (CVS version)

>>>>> "Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> writes:

    Jason> On 29 Mar 1999, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:

    >> I've put a deb of the CVS version of Roxen Challenger (1.4) on
    >> papadoc for download.  It's the latest and the greatest! It's a
    >> _LOT_ faster than 1.2.46, it have some more modules.  The
    >> package is called 'roxen-cvs' and can be found with (apt line):

    Jason> Can you tell me if this new Roxen does the following:
    Jason>   1) Working http/1.1 keep-alive
    Jason>      a) Support for keep-alive 404 errors
    Jason>      b) Support for keep-alive IMS hits
    Jason>   2) Correct file timestamp headers that are actually in UTC
    Jason>   3) Working http/1.1 range: headers

I have no idea what you talking of, so I have no opinion on if it works
or not :)

However, doing a grep in the CVS source tree revels this:

----- s n i p -----
[ssh.papadoc]$ find -type f -exec grep -i keep[-_]alive {} \; -print
o Experimental keep-alive support added.
and transmits role and keep-alive information, and a simplified
      .B--with-keep-aliveB.:          Enable keep alive in the HTTP 
  request_headers = ([]);       // FIXME: KEEP-ALIVE?
    // This is an easy reason why: It breaks keep-alive totaly.
    myheads += ({ "Connection: Keep-Alive" });
----- s n i p -----

And when comparing http.pike with the one from 1.2.46 (and the 1.2beta1),
I could not see any differences when it comes to the KEEP_ALIVE stuff...

So it doesn't seem like much have changed since 1.2 beta 1.
    Jason> I have been telling debian mirror admins to not use roxen
    Jason> for serving the ftp archive because all previous versions
    Jason> had some combination of the above wrong with them. APT
    Jason> makes use of all those features and the Roxen people I
    Jason> talked with didn't seem to have any interest in adding
    Jason> them.

I'm running Roxen (oh, what a suprice :), and I have not seen any problem
with running apt against ether 1.2.46 nor 1.4 (have not tried the 1.2beta1,
since it was over a year since I was running that one)...

How would i check this?

(The diff on http.pike between 1.2 and 1.4 can be found at
 if anyone care to take a look and see if any of it matters...)

When you put out your 'warning', what version was it you had tried against?
1.2beta1 (in hamm/slink)?

    We are GNU.  You will be GPL'ed.  Resistance is futile.
 / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \  Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org>
( D | e | b | i | a | n ) Debian Certified Linux Developer
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/  Gothenburg/Sweden
Linux is a kernel. Saying 'I use Linux' amounts to saying
'I use a car engine', when what people really are refering
to is the entire vehicle.

  Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Panama explosion KGB Kennedy NSA Honduras FSF class struggle PLO
Noriega SDI Soviet kibo jihad NORAD

Reply to: