On 12/5/06, Phil Bordelon <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
> > This should really have been sent to the users@ list.
> I did, well over a month ago, and got no response:
> I read through the "rules" for the lists here and it says that you
> should send to dev@ if you get no response and you think it's a bug ...
> which I did. Apologies if that was the wrong way to go about it, but
> if so, the guide should be updated:
I am just a user too, I was not admonishing you. It sounds like you did
things right. I do not recall your message mentioning you had already
posted on users@. If you had, I certainly would not have said anything.
The good news is that you appear to have gotten the answer you needed.
That said, given the responses below, obviously I should have dug
> through the user@ archives more before I posted. I apologise for
A search for "slow svnserve" might have gotten somewhere. I know to search
for APR entropy. You obviously had no way to know that was the problem, so
do not worry about it too much.
> This does, indeed, fix the problem. I'm not using APR for anything that
> needs deep cryptographic complexity, so I'm okay with using /dev/urandom
> for my APR compile, but that seems an, ah, unobvious fix. In this
> Karl suggested updating the documentation to cover this case. Consider
> this a hearty vote in assent.
I am surprised if it is not in the FAQ by now. I just have a good memory
and can find old posts, but as a Windows user, the actual subject is out of
my comfort zone or I'd submit a patch to the FAQ.
Glad it worked.
Received on Tue Dec 5 20:25:08 2006