Re: Fixing (and making easier) Apache mod_proxy_fcgi with PHP-FPM
| From: | dz at heroku dot com | Date: | Sun, 29 Jun 2014 23:58:48 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Fixing (and making easier) Apache mod_proxy_fcgi with PHP-FPM | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-75134@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
(to clarify: when using 2.4.10+ with SetHandler and the now merged PR, the bug doesn't occur,
but if people are using mod_rewrite, or ProxyPass(Match), either because they don't know about
the new method or are stuck on older versions of Apache, bug 65641 is still relevant)
On 29.06.2014, at 16:51, David Zuelke <dz@heroku.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the merge, but the just-merged PR addresses a different issue than bug 65641. That
> one is still unaddressed.
>
> The NEWS entry for the just-merged PR should be something like "Support Apache 2.4.10+
> SetHandler method for mod_proxy_fcgi and PHP-FPM", and bug 65641 should be re-opened.
>
> I'll see if I can look at the patches for bug 65641 again the next few days; my gut
> feeling is that there should be a much easier way of fixing this. After all, the patches all strip
> out parts of a string that shouldn't be there in the first place.
>
> David
>
>
> On 27.06.2014, at 15:27, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:51 PM, David Zuelke <dz@heroku.com> wrote:
>> On 27.06.2014, at 00:39, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 26, 2014 10:30 PM, "David Zuelke" <dz@heroku.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 26.06.2014, at 12:23, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 26, 2014 9:12 PM, "David Zuelke" <dz@heroku.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what RCs are for, right? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> In an ideal world with ideal users yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we are not in that world :)
>>>>
>>>> I know :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what is wrong in putting us on the safe? Waiting 2 months max is not that bad :)
>>
>> Sure, but then it would be good to have this in the next 5.6 RC, that'll probably get
>> more testing exposure, too.
>>
>> Either way, someone should please commit it into some branch soon ;)
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> Was waiting for Stas to reply, I will merge it into 5.6 this weekend if he doesn't
>> reply that he wants to merge it into 5.4, then we can test it with the 5.6RCs and merge back to
>> 5.4/5.5.
>>
>> --
>> Ferenc Kovács
>> @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
>