Hi soren,
Thanks for useful information on this.
We are not spawning children from the pre/post config, but still i could see
the long lost child alerts. This alerts is coming only on graceful
restart(SIGUSR) of the server and not on restart on the server.
When i did debug on the worker
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 13:54, Jaysingh Samuel
jayasingh.sam...@hotmail.comwrote:
Hi soren,
Thanks for useful information on this.
We are not spawning children from the pre/post config, but still i could
see the long lost child alerts. This alerts is coming only on graceful
restart(SIGUSR)
Jeff Barnes wrote:
I obsoleted the .8 file and attached the svn diff for the xml file.
Should the ab.8 file be removed from svn if it gets overwritten with each
documentation generation?
No moreso than the .html files, all generated from xml. We don't expect
typical developers to install
Udo Rader wrote:
I am just trying to set up a X.509 client certificates + LDAP based
authorizaton system.
I've setup all pieces best to my knowledge (mod_ssl, mod_auth_basic,
mod_auth_ldap), but I am still having problems to connect to our LDAP
server because SSLOption FakeBasicAuth still
On 06.09.2009 22:38, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 01 September 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
I guess
reqtimeout_after_body
also needs to be updated to the assert / do nothing if not
configured logic like reqtimeout_after_headers
Thanks, I missed that. I fixed it and also added
Eric Covener wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Udo Raderlist...@bestsolution.at wrote:
Graham Leggett wrote:
SSLOptions +FakeBasicAuth
AuthName Snake Oil Authentication
AuthType Basic
AuthBasicProvider ldap
AuthLDAPRemoteUserAttribute uid
AuthLDAPURL
Udo Rader wrote:
Maybe a more concrete sample can help clarify what I am talking about,
here's my approximate setup:
Location /fooBar
SSLVerifyClient require
SSLRequireSSL
SSLOptions +FakeBasicAuth
AuthName Snake Oil Authentication
AuthType Basic
AuthBasicProvider ldap
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Udo Raderlist...@bestsolution.at wrote:
Graham Leggett wrote:
SSLOptions +FakeBasicAuth
AuthName Snake Oil Authentication
AuthType Basic
AuthBasicProvider ldap
AuthLDAPRemoteUserAttribute uid
AuthLDAPURL
Graham Leggett wrote:
Udo Rader wrote:
Maybe a more concrete sample can help clarify what I am talking about,
here's my approximate setup:
Location /fooBar
SSLVerifyClient require
SSLRequireSSL
SSLOptions +FakeBasicAuth
AuthName Snake Oil Authentication
AuthType Basic
Graham Leggett wrote:
Udo Rader wrote:
I am just trying to set up a X.509 client certificates + LDAP based
authorizaton system.
I've setup all pieces best to my knowledge (mod_ssl, mod_auth_basic,
mod_auth_ldap), but I am still having problems to connect to our LDAP
server because SSLOption
Technically what's being attempted here is a lookup rather than authentication.
The intention is to do a query using the cert info to get back the uid from LDAP
(as opposed to an LDAP connect with a password followed by a query).
Currently the LDAP code only provides Authentication and/or
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Udo Raderlist...@bestsolution.at wrote:
Typically, certificate based authentication needs to be supported by LDAP,
the latter translating the certificate subjects into real usernames,
useable by external applications via REMOTE_USER.
A change to mod_ssl to
Hi,
I want to write tiny module which measure cpu time (on unix like system) for
each request and write down values into the log. I think implement it by
getrusage().
First hook (e.g. ap_hook_post_read_request) in this module should be called
before the same hook in any other modules (I think
Let's see if this is it...
Please fetch up the newly prepared mod_ftp-0.9.5.tar.gz (or .bz2), or the
win32/netware/os2 suitable package mod_ftp-0.9.5-crlf.zip from;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_ftp/
review, take it for a spin, and cast your choice
[ ] -1 for any release of 0.9.5
mod_fcgid freinds;
Please fetch up the newly minted mod_fcgid-2.3.1.tar.gz (or bz2)
or the win32 suitable package mod_fcgid-2.3.1-crlf.zip from:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_fcgid/
review, take it for a spin, and cast your choice
[ ] -1 for any release of 2.3.1 (regressed from
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
According to Jeff:
A lot of opinions were offered back in August. Some were negative but
I don't see anything that looks like a veto.
I voted -1 at that time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter, please confirm if you are casting a veto, or in light of
this earlier discussion and rationale, you are just expressing your
standing distaste for the patch (which is -0)?
For the record, I also agree with
17 matches
Mail list logo