Le 02/07/2016 à 23:22, Hoggins! a écrit :
Thanks Cyril.
I discovered the answer while you were writing yours. Sorry for the noise.
If you plan to upgrade to 1.6.6, be aware of a regression which may hurt
you.
Willy has already reverted the commit on the master branch :
Thanks Cyril.
I discovered the answer while you were writing yours. Sorry for the noise.
Hoggins!
Le 02/07/2016 22:48, Cyril Bonté a écrit :
> Le 02/07/2016 à 22:45, Hoggins! a écrit :
>> Oh my !
>>
>> It's just happening to me on Fedora 24 with version
>> haproxy-1.6.5-3.fc24.x86_64 !
>>
>>
Le 02/07/2016 à 22:45, Hoggins! a écrit :
Oh my !
It's just happening to me on Fedora 24 with version
haproxy-1.6.5-3.fc24.x86_64 !
Well, I have a huge problem since I just upgraded and the mess is all
around, listening on all ports and all IPv4 addresses.
Can you summarize what I should do ?
Oh my !
It's just happening to me on Fedora 24 with version
haproxy-1.6.5-3.fc24.x86_64 !
Well, I have a huge problem since I just upgraded and the mess is all
around, listening on all ports and all IPv4 addresses.
Can you summarize what I should do ? Recompile with which options ?
Thanks !
Hi,
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 04:13:56PM +0200, Conrad Hoffmann wrote:
>> Yeah, I was pondering the same thing. DNS servers not capable of that
>> extensions (very few, I think) would ignore it, so always adding the OPT
>> record would be safe indeed.
I would be very careful about that. A lot of
Hi Willy, Roberto, Emeric,
On 06/30/2016 08:12 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> I checked the man page for SSL_CTX_set_tmp_dh() and it does not mention
> anything regarding the need to free the param or not. And the example
> that comes with it doesn't involve a call to DH_free().
It's a mess, I
6 matches
Mail list logo