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. > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=267477 There is no 'simple' way of doing this, especially as people who want 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. > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=291841 Ever ran a log analysis program? > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=325594 Just kill the old one, start the new one. > 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. Any bugs which are deadly and critical except for the fact that you don't want to read documentation a bit? Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature