[WBEL-users] Apache httpd 2.0.54 (or .55) for WBEL3?

[Johnny Hughes]

On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 19:30 -0500, Eric B. wrote:
> Thanks for the info Scott.  Definitely very enlightening.
> 
> My problem however, is that I'm interested in one particular patch that is 
> not a security patch as much as a functionality patch.  A bug in httpd 
> causes me issues with the ProxyPassReverse argument, which is causing my 
> proxy pages to be non-accessible.  Apparently, it has been found and 
> potentially fixed, but likely not necessarily a patch that Red Hat would 
> include in the 2.0.46-XX releases as it is not a security fix.  Perhaps if 
> RedHat maintained a list of patches that are applied to each backport, I'd 
> be able to find it in there, but I scanned the RedHat site and couldn't find 
> such a document.  Do you know if they track that information anywhere, short 
> of within RHN?
> 

rpm -q --changelog httpd | less

> 
> "Scott Silva" <ssilva at sgvwater.com> wrote in message 
> news:dkgqpt$2qq$1 at sea.gmane.org...
> > Eric B. spake the following on 11/4/2005 2:55 PM:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am looking to upgrade by Apache Httpd server from 2.0.46 to one of the
> >> latest versions, due to bug fixes and patches that are found in the 
> >> latest
> >> builds.  However, the only rpms that I found are for Fedora 3 or 4.  So I
> >> figured I'd have to build from the .src.rpm myself.  But, even the 
> >> .src.rpms
> >> require libraries that are newer than those found on WBEL3.
> >>
> >> Any suggestions as to what to do in these circumstances?  Am I foo-bar'ed 
> >> at
> >> this point, and forced to either compile httpd from the source tarball, 
> >> or
> >> stick with 2.0.46?
> >>
> >> Thanks!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://beau.org/pipermail/whitebox-users/attachments/20051104/72d5837d/attachment.bin