On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:33 PM ste...@eissing.org wrote:
>
> Found https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64753
>
> Switch the configure.in to the one in branches/1.7.x, buildconf again and now
> it compiles
The checked in patch seems to be https://svn.apache.org/r1871981
>
> Seems, a
> Am 10.09.2021 um 16:31 schrieb Yann Ylavic :
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:18 PM ste...@eissing.org wrote:
>>
>> APR experts: I build the -deps tar with apr 1.7.0 / apr-util 1.6.1. Those
>> are looked up at the site as the latest, just like the old scripts did.
>> However, that will not
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:18 PM ste...@eissing.org wrote:
>
> APR experts: I build the -deps tar with apr 1.7.0 / apr-util 1.6.1. Those are
> looked up at the site as the latest, just like the old scripts did.
> However, that will not configure on my macOS. The branches/1.7.x which I
> normally
APR experts: I build the -deps tar with apr 1.7.0 / apr-util 1.6.1. Those are
looked up at the site as the latest, just like the old scripts did.
However, that will not configure on my macOS. The branches/1.7.x which I
normally use does.
./include/apr.h:561:2: error: Can not determine the
On 9/10/21 12:07 PM, ste...@eissing.org wrote:
>
> So far, I hear that people think we should make a 2.4.49 based
> on the current 2.4.x.
>
> I will do some IRL errands and things and come back to this
> in the afternoon. If this still stands then, I'll create a
> 2.4.49-rc1 and put that
> Am 10.09.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Ruediger Pluem :
>
>
>
> On 9/10/21 10:50 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 09:42:10AM +0200, ste...@eissing.org wrote:
>>>
>>>
Am 10.09.2021 um 09:02 schrieb Joe Orton :
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:23:13PM -0700, Gregg Smith
On 9/10/21 10:50 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 09:42:10AM +0200, ste...@eissing.org wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Am 10.09.2021 um 09:02 schrieb Joe Orton :
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:23:13PM -0700, Gregg Smith wrote:
Since OpenSSL 3.0.0 GA came out yesterday (Californuts time)
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 09:42:10AM +0200, ste...@eissing.org wrote:
>
>
> > Am 10.09.2021 um 09:02 schrieb Joe Orton :
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:23:13PM -0700, Gregg Smith wrote:
> >> Since OpenSSL 3.0.0 GA came out yesterday (Californuts time) I think it
> >> would be nice to have
Indeed it kind of sounds too early to go with OpenSSL 3 yet to consider for
a stable release of apache. (Too fresh out of the oven?)
El vie., 10 sept. 2021 9:42, ste...@eissing.org
escribió:
>
>
> > Am 10.09.2021 um 09:02 schrieb Joe Orton :
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:23:13PM -0700,
> Am 10.09.2021 um 09:02 schrieb Joe Orton :
>
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:23:13PM -0700, Gregg Smith wrote:
>> Since OpenSSL 3.0.0 GA came out yesterday (Californuts time) I think it
>> would be nice to have r1891138 backported for those wishing to try it out.
>> What you say?
>
> I'd say
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:23:13PM -0700, Gregg Smith wrote:
> Since OpenSSL 3.0.0 GA came out yesterday (Californuts time) I think it
> would be nice to have r1891138 backported for those wishing to try it out.
> What you say?
I'd say it's better to try to get a successful release out, then try
On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 22:23, Gregg Smith wrote:
>
> Since OpenSSL 3.0.0 GA came out yesterday (Californuts time) I think it
> would be nice to have r1891138 backported for those wishing to try it
> out. What you say?
+1 for the backport
On 9/9/21 18:23, Gregg Smith wrote:
> Since OpenSSL 3.0.0 GA came out yesterday (Californuts time) I think it
> would be nice to have r1891138 backported for those wishing to try it
> out. What you say?
I have been doing some testing with the OpenSSL beta releases for quite
some time now. However
Since OpenSSL 3.0.0 GA came out yesterday (Californuts time) I think it
would be nice to have r1891138 backported for those wishing to try it
out. What you say?
Cheers,
Gregg
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 4:11 PM ste...@eissing.org wrote:
>
> FYI: from the script side, I am ready to roll the first candidate.
> - We have one security issue in a not quite complete state
> - There are 2 possible back ports hanging in STATUS
>
> We can see tomorrow how comfy we are and either I
FYI: from the script side, I am ready to roll the first candidate.
- We have one security issue in a not quite complete state
- There are 2 possible back ports hanging in STATUS
We can see tomorrow how comfy we are and either I roll right away or
we target Monday/Tuesday, I suppose.
cheers,
16 matches
Mail list logo
