Em Fri, 11 Sep 2015 23:00:29 +0200
Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> escreveu:
> ❦ 11 septembre 2015 19:50 +0200, Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> :
>
> >>> The description of fix-mini-httpd-vhost could be "Append port number to
> >>> vhost". The name of the patch could be "append-portno-to-vhost.patch". A
> >>> bug report number to know why this is done would be great to.
> >> fix name.
> >> Yes, look [1]
> >
> > You can include the bug number in the patch (with Bug:). I see that you
> > already put it in the changelog but the entry doesn't help to know what
> > the patch is about.
>
> In the patch itself, you can include the bug number.
>
> Description: Append port number to vhost.
> Thanks Steffen Grunewald <steffen.grunewald@gmx.net>
> Author: Jose dos Santos Junior <j.s.junior@live.com>
> Last-Update: 2015-09-05
> Bug: http://bugs.debian.org/xxxxx
>
Ok added bug number and link
> >>> Also, this
> >>> would make the Debian package behaves differently than upstream. Has
> >>> this patch been pushed upstream?
> >> No, patch suggestion bug number #491078 [1]
> >
> > The bug is from 2008 and despite numerous releases, it is not present
> > upstream. This makes mini-httpd behaves differently in Debian than in
> > other distributions or when just compiled from sources.
> >
> > This will also break setup of people that were relying on the original
> > behavior, so you would need to add an entry in NEWS.Debian to advertise
> > the change.
> >
> > I would not include the patch until it is vetted by upstream.
>
> The patch to remove the port number is a deviation from what is done
> upstream. mini-httpd in Debian won't behave in the same way as
> mini-httpd somewhere else (including in older releases of Debian). The
> patch should be pushed upstream and not applied in Debian until it is
> applied upstream.
>
> Moreover, if you apply the patch in Debian, you also need to write an
> entry in debian/NEWS.Debian to tell the users that the behavior of
> mini-httpd has changed. This is totally not worth it.
>
> Just send the patch upstream (with a reference to the bug report). And
> don't apply it yet.
>
Remove patch
> #v+
> @@ -1140,8 +1140,8 @@ handle_request( void )
> char* cp;
> int r, file_len, i;
> const char* index_names[] = {
> - "index.html", "index.htm", "index.xhtml", "index.xht", "Default.htm",
> - "index.cgi" };
> + "index.html", "index.mini-httpd.html", "index.htm", "index.xhtml",
> "index.xht", "Default.htm",
> + "index.cgi", "index.php" };
>
> /* Set up the timeout for reading. */
> #ifdef HAVE_SIGSET
> #v-
OK, fix it
>
> This has nothing to do with the overflow problem. You need to put this
> chunk into another patch.
Send for mentor with new changes.
[]'s
JJ
Attachment:
pgpXa58AX7Hrc.pgp
Description: Assinatura digital OpenPGP