nginx-0.7.42

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

nginx-0.7.42

Igor Sysoev
Changes with nginx 0.7.42                                        16 Mar 2009

    *) Change: now the "Invalid argument" error returned by
       setsockopt(TCP_NODELAY) on Solaris, is ignored.

    *) Change: now if a file specified in a "auth_basic_user_file"
       directive is absent, then the 405 error is returned instead of the
       500 one.

    *) Feature: the "auth_basic_user_file" directive supports variables.
       Thanks to Kirill A. Korinskiy.

    *) Feature: the "listen" directive supports the "ipv6only" parameter.
       Thanks to Zhang Hua.

    *) Bugfix: in an "alias" directive with references to captures of
       regular expressions; the bug had appeared in 0.7.40.

    *) Bugfix: compatibility with Tru64 UNIX.
       Thanks to Dustin Marquess.

    *) Bugfix: nginx could not be built without PCRE library; the bug had
       appeared in 0.7.41.


--
Igor Sysoev
http://sysoev.ru/en/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: nginx-0.7.42

Michael Shadle
2009/3/16 Igor Sysoev <[hidden email]>:

>    *) Change: now if a file specified in a "auth_basic_user_file"
>       directive is absent, then the 405 error is returned instead of the
>       500 one.

Shouldn't it be a 403? 405 doesnt' seem right there.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: nginx-0.7.42

Igor Sysoev
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:45:37AM -0700, mike wrote:

> 2009/3/16 Igor Sysoev <[hidden email]>:
>
> >    *) Change: now if a file specified in a "auth_basic_user_file"
> >       directive is absent, then the 405 error is returned instead of the
> >       500 one.
>
> Shouldn't it be a 403? 405 doesnt' seem right there.

Yes, this is typo.


--
Igor Sysoev
http://sysoev.ru/en/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: nginx-0.7.42

Michael Shadle
Excellent. Thanks for the quick release! This is going on production
right now :)

For the future it might be cool to also allow for "auth_basic" to also
accept the variable too (for customized realm names)


2009/3/16 Igor Sysoev <[hidden email]>:

> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:45:37AM -0700, mike wrote:
>
>> 2009/3/16 Igor Sysoev <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> >    *) Change: now if a file specified in a "auth_basic_user_file"
>> >       directive is absent, then the 405 error is returned instead of the
>> >       500 one.
>>
>> Shouldn't it be a 403? 405 doesnt' seem right there.
>
> Yes, this is typo.
>
>
> --
> Igor Sysoev
> http://sysoev.ru/en/
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: nginx-0.7.42

Kevin Worthington
Nginx 0.7.42 for Windows is now available: http://cli.gs/742
--
Kevin Worthington




On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:33 PM, mike <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Excellent. Thanks for the quick release! This is going on production
> right now :)
>
> For the future it might be cool to also allow for "auth_basic" to also
> accept the variable too (for customized realm names)
>
>
> 2009/3/16 Igor Sysoev <[hidden email]>:
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:45:37AM -0700, mike wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/3/16 Igor Sysoev <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> >    *) Change: now if a file specified in a "auth_basic_user_file"
>>> >       directive is absent, then the 405 error is returned instead of the
>>> >       500 one.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't it be a 403? 405 doesnt' seem right there.
>>
>> Yes, this is typo.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Igor Sysoev
>> http://sysoev.ru/en/
>>
>>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: nginx-0.7.42

Athan Dimoy
In reply to this post by Igor Sysoev
Any idea when 0.7xx new features will be backported to stable tree (0.6)?

Thanks.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: nginx-0.7.42

Michael Shadle
How about when it will be deemed stable (been running it fine ever
since I decided to use nginx ...) and consider 0.6.x legacy instead?
:)

2009/3/17 Athan Dimoy <[hidden email]>:
> Any idea when 0.7xx new features will be backported to stable tree (0.6)?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: nginx-0.7.42

Walter Cruz
good catch.

Why 0.7 is not considered stable?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM, mike <[hidden email]> wrote:
How about when it will be deemed stable (been running it fine ever
since I decided to use nginx ...) and consider 0.6.x legacy instead?
:)

2009/3/17 Athan Dimoy <[hidden email]>:
> Any idea when 0.7xx new features will be backported to stable tree (0.6)?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>




--
[]'
- Walter
waltercruz.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: nginx-0.7.42

Merlin-2
I would guess that it will be stable when Igor releases 0.8.x.

However, did PHP fastcgi recently break? I am referring to the incorrect server name as 0.0.0.0 - maybe it isn't broken, just saying, perhaps possible issues like this is why.  Also, more importantly, new features have been introduced that are still going through iterations (the try_files directive, specifically).  Generally, this is what staves off "stable-ness".  This is why debian packages are so old in the stable branch, btw - they do not update package versions or add new packages except for security concerns - this is what makes it stable (rarely changing), as opposed to volatile (often changing) system.

That said, many of us use the development branch in production, as really a recompile of the binary is no problem when you can switch the processes with zero downtime :).  NginX is one of the better programs out there to have on the cutting edge; Igore is from what I've seen very careful in what he adds or changes and it always seems to be improving, with fewer bugs being introduced than fixed (which is awesome!).

- Merlin

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Walter Cruz <[hidden email]> wrote:
good catch.

Why 0.7 is not considered stable?


On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM, mike <[hidden email]> wrote:
How about when it will be deemed stable (been running it fine ever
since I decided to use nginx ...) and consider 0.6.x legacy instead?
:)

2009/3/17 Athan Dimoy <[hidden email]>:
> Any idea when 0.7xx new features will be backported to stable tree (0.6)?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>




--
[]'
- Walter
waltercruz.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: nginx-0.7.42

Michael Shadle
i would think it's nginx's fastcgi, not php's fastcgi.

nginx's told to fastcgi_param SERVER_ADDR the same, and the version of
nginx changed, nothing else - PHP didn't, etc. so the problem from
that angle is localized to something on the nginx side.


On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Merlin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would guess that it will be stable when Igor releases 0.8.x.
>
> However, did PHP fastcgi recently break? I am referring to the incorrect
> server name as 0.0.0.0 - maybe it isn't broken, just saying, perhaps
> possible issues like this is why.  Also, more importantly, new features have
> been introduced that are still going through iterations (the try_files
> directive, specifically).  Generally, this is what staves off
> "stable-ness".  This is why debian packages are so old in the stable branch,
> btw - they do not update package versions or add new packages except for
> security concerns - this is what makes it stable (rarely changing), as
> opposed to volatile (often changing) system.
>
> That said, many of us use the development branch in production, as really a
> recompile of the binary is no problem when you can switch the processes with
> zero downtime :).  NginX is one of the better programs out there to have on
> the cutting edge; Igore is from what I've seen very careful in what he adds
> or changes and it always seems to be improving, with fewer bugs being
> introduced than fixed (which is awesome!).
>
> - Merlin
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Walter Cruz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> good catch.
>>
>> Why 0.7 is not considered stable?
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM, mike <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> How about when it will be deemed stable (been running it fine ever
>>> since I decided to use nginx ...) and consider 0.6.x legacy instead?
>>> :)
>>>
>>> 2009/3/17 Athan Dimoy <[hidden email]>:
>>> > Any idea when 0.7xx new features will be backported to stable tree
>>> > (0.6)?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> []'
>> - Walter
>> waltercruz.com
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: nginx-0.7.42

Jim O
It should be easy to test. Define fastcgi_param SERVER_ADDR as a constant (say your real IP) in your fastcgi_params file and see what's passed in phpinfo.

BTW, a similar  bug appeared before and I pulled my hair out over it. Igor did subsequently fix it in 0.7.20.  It's in the changelog.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: mike <[hidden email]>

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:26:10
To: <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: nginx-0.7.42


i would think it's nginx's fastcgi, not php's fastcgi.

nginx's told to fastcgi_param SERVER_ADDR the same, and the version of
nginx changed, nothing else - PHP didn't, etc. so the problem from
that angle is localized to something on the nginx side.


On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Merlin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would guess that it will be stable when Igor releases 0.8.x.
>
> However, did PHP fastcgi recently break? I am referring to the incorrect
> server name as 0.0.0.0 - maybe it isn't broken, just saying, perhaps
> possible issues like this is why.  Also, more importantly, new features have
> been introduced that are still going through iterations (the try_files
> directive, specifically).  Generally, this is what staves off
> "stable-ness".  This is why debian packages are so old in the stable branch,
> btw - they do not update package versions or add new packages except for
> security concerns - this is what makes it stable (rarely changing), as
> opposed to volatile (often changing) system.
>
> That said, many of us use the development branch in production, as really a
> recompile of the binary is no problem when you can switch the processes with
> zero downtime :).  NginX is one of the better programs out there to have on
> the cutting edge; Igore is from what I've seen very careful in what he adds
> or changes and it always seems to be improving, with fewer bugs being
> introduced than fixed (which is awesome!).
>
> - Merlin
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Walter Cruz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> good catch.
>>
>> Why 0.7 is not considered stable?
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM, mike <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> How about when it will be deemed stable (been running it fine ever
>>> since I decided to use nginx ...) and consider 0.6.x legacy instead?
>>> :)
>>>
>>> 2009/3/17 Athan Dimoy <[hidden email]>:
>>> > Any idea when 0.7xx new features will be backported to stable tree
>>> > (0.6)?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> []'
>> - Walter
>> waltercruz.com
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: nginx-0.7.42

Tomasz Pajor
+1 for 0.7.* to be stable

> It should be easy to test. Define fastcgi_param SERVER_ADDR as a constant (say your real IP) in your fastcgi_params file and see what's passed in phpinfo.
>
> BTW, a similar  bug appeared before and I pulled my hair out over it. Igor did subsequently fix it in 0.7.20.  It's in the changelog.
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mike <[hidden email]>
>
> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:26:10
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: nginx-0.7.42
>
>
> i would think it's nginx's fastcgi, not php's fastcgi.
>
> nginx's told to fastcgi_param SERVER_ADDR the same, and the version of
> nginx changed, nothing else - PHP didn't, etc. so the problem from
> that angle is localized to something on the nginx side.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Merlin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> I would guess that it will be stable when Igor releases 0.8.x.
>>
>> However, did PHP fastcgi recently break? I am referring to the incorrect
>> server name as 0.0.0.0 - maybe it isn't broken, just saying, perhaps
>> possible issues like this is why.  Also, more importantly, new features have
>> been introduced that are still going through iterations (the try_files
>> directive, specifically).  Generally, this is what staves off
>> "stable-ness".  This is why debian packages are so old in the stable branch,
>> btw - they do not update package versions or add new packages except for
>> security concerns - this is what makes it stable (rarely changing), as
>> opposed to volatile (often changing) system.
>>
>> That said, many of us use the development branch in production, as really a
>> recompile of the binary is no problem when you can switch the processes with
>> zero downtime :).  NginX is one of the better programs out there to have on
>> the cutting edge; Igore is from what I've seen very careful in what he adds
>> or changes and it always seems to be improving, with fewer bugs being
>> introduced than fixed (which is awesome!).
>>
>> - Merlin
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Walter Cruz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>    
>>> good catch.
>>>
>>> Why 0.7 is not considered stable?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM, mike <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>      
>>>> How about when it will be deemed stable (been running it fine ever
>>>> since I decided to use nginx ...) and consider 0.6.x legacy instead?
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> 2009/3/17 Athan Dimoy <[hidden email]>:
>>>>        
>>>>> Any idea when 0.7xx new features will be backported to stable tree
>>>>> (0.6)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>
>>> --
>>> []'
>>> - Walter
>>> waltercruz.com
>>>      
>>    
>
>