APACHE 2.3 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2007-12-03 15:06:37 -0500 (Mon, 03 Dec 2007) $]
The current version of this file can be found at:
* http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS
Documentation status is maintained se
APACHE 2.2 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2008-01-09 13:48:58 -0500 (Wed, 09 Jan 2008) $]
The current version of this file can be found at:
* http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Documentation status is main
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2008-01-08 08:46:15 -0500 (Tue, 08 Jan 2008) $]
The current version of this file can be found at:
* http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
Documentation status is main
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
The changes in trunk are rational but widely distributed, we now set up
a single initialization where once we had many, for an assortment of
state variables. Those sorts of changes are prone to fallout. If you
are playing with trunk and svn up, be sure to make clean;
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I've heard one + and one - for removing STATUS-FTP, and I think Jorge's
point is well taken, at least for alphas and betas, so it seems it's
worth leaving STATUS-FTP in our alpha and beta packages (and I think
it's also a good point for httpd-2.3-a
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'm thinking of a scenario where the console *parent only* and on win32
might hold onto the stdin handle. I'll research and reply.
I'm becoming more certain that without stdout (we *do* launch with stdin
to the console, because it's only deprived from the child) we
Answer to your first question can be found at
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43238#c3
Regards
Rüdiger
On 01/09/2008 10:34 PM, Adam Woodworth wrote:
> 1st question still up for grabs, but I found the answer to my 2nd
> question for those interested:
>
> Bug 43472 (http://issu
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
START httpd goes into it's goofy mode because it has no interactive
behavior, but has no cmd to exit to, and cmd sees it's process is still
running. start -k httpd should not exhibit this behavior. If there was
a start -hide -k httpd, it wouldn't be offensive.
FYI
Just a FYI: Since I have some plans for this evening, the
T&R of the Holy Trinity :) will occur tomorrow am.
1st question still up for grabs, but I found the answer to my 2nd
question for those interested:
Bug 43472 (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43472)
reported this problem and the fix for it is in 2.2.7. I just tried
the 2.2.7 tag from svn and it solved the issue for me.
On Jan 8
Howdy,
(William Rowe from the ASF suggested I post this to your dev@ list)
My name is Garrett Serack, and I am the Community Program Manager in the Open
Source Software Labs here at Microsoft.
I would like to extend an official invitation to the Apache Software Foundation
to participate in t
On Jan 9, 2008 2:00 AM, Sander Temme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 8, 2008, at 3:10 PM, David Sklar wrote:
>
> > Any comments on the patch would be appreciated -- it's wonderful, it's
> > a good solution but could be improved, it's a ridiculous way to solve
> > this problem, etc.
>
> Doesn'
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Januar 2008 16:17
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Pre-release test tarballs of httpd 1.3.40,
> 2.0.62 and 2.2.7 available
>
>
>
> On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Jim Jagielski wr
On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
Not so sure here - we're not really returning an error status in
any case, and sending errors to the backend falls outside the scope
of HTTP.
I've just voted +1 on keeping that as-is, in the hope of
On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
Not so sure here - we're not really returning an error status in
any case, and sending errors to the backend falls outside the scope
of HTTP.
I've just voted +1 on keeping that as-is, in the hope of getting
backported in time for Jim's 2.2.8 schedule.
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:15:57 +0100
Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At lines 364 and 460 (trunk), you set HTTP_SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE
> > when broken chunking is encountered. I don't think that's right:
>
> That's because this was the error code that was used there before for
>
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:25:54 -0500
Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, one sees that we've done it both ways.
> Consider 2.2.5 and 2.2.1. Same with the 2.0.x
> ones as well...
>
> Looking back, I prefer keeping the "old" way, where
> once we've tagged, we have a corresponding e
On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:21 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:00 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 08:56:58 -0500
Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW: Shouldn't we drop 2.2.7 entirely from the CHANGES file and
put all
changes since 2.2.6 under 2.2.8?
No, since ther
On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:00 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 08:56:58 -0500
Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW: Shouldn't we drop 2.2.7 entirely from the CHANGES file and
put all
changes since 2.2.6 under 2.2.8?
No, since there *was* a 2.2.7... it just wasn't released.
Just a
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 08:56:58 -0500
Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BTW: Shouldn't we drop 2.2.7 entirely from the CHANGES file and
> > put all
> > changes since 2.2.6 under 2.2.8?
> >
>
> No, since there *was* a 2.2.7... it just wasn't released.
Just as there *was* a 2.2.5.
--
Nick
On Jan 8, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 01/08/2008 05:47 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 01/08/2008 05:12 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ *) SECURITY: CVE-2008-0005 (cve.mitre.org)
I thought we concur that (short of direct html injection in the
page
Kaspar Brand wrote:
Has a configuration
with an SSLVerifyClient specified in the named vhost been tested?
Yes, and one specific configuration actually made me tweak the code in
the servername callback further: [...]
It turns out that this change was too radical, actually - it prevented
per-
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Sander Temme
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Januar 2008 08:01
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: mod_dav patch to force scheme/port on
> https->http proxying
>
>
>
> On Jan 8, 2008, at 3:10 PM, David Sklar wrote:
>
> > Any comments on the patch wou
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Nick Kew
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Januar 2008 01:27
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Pre-release test tarballs of httpd 1.3.40,
> 2.0.62 and 2.2.7 available
>
>
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:29:43 +0100
> Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
24 matches
Mail list logo
