Guenter Knauf wrote:
> the checksums are in wrong format. We need to commonly agree how to
> generate checksum files. The documented format what the user expects is:
The checksums are generated by the release.sh script, and if they are in
the wrong format, then the release.sh script must be updat
Hello,
*) mod_proxy_scgi: Backport from trunk. [André Malo]
just in case you didn't know, there is no mod_proxy_scgi
makefile/project additions for Windows in SVN branch/tarballs
[0] Release httpd-2.2.14 as GA
Peace,
Gregg
On 24.09.2009 01:34, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> FWIW, the Python specific hosting module called mod_wsgi for Apache
> implements named daemon process groups, with ability to control how
> WSGI applications are delegated to which process group. This includes
> being able to optionally have process gr
Guenter Knauf wrote:
> the checksums are in wrong format. We need to commonly agree how to
> generate checksum files. The documented format what the user expects is:
>
> # cat httpd-2.2.14.tar.bz2.md5
> a5226203aaf97e5b941c41a71c112704 *httpd-2.2.14.tar.bz2
> # cat httpd-2.2.14.tar.bz2.sha1
> eac
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Graham Leggett wrote:
The huge benefit of this format is that the binaries can then be checked
with same tools (option -c).
With the downside that what you propose only works on Linux.
Rather, it only works on platforms where md5sum/sha1sum is installed.
Don't confuse t
On 24.09.2009 14:38, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>
>> the checksums are in wrong format. We need to commonly agree how to
>> generate checksum files. The documented format what the user expects is:
>>
>> # cat httpd-2.2.14.tar.bz2.md5
>> a5226203aaf97e5b941c41a71c112704 *httpd-2.2
Graham Leggett schrieb:
> The checksums are generated by the release.sh script, and if they are in
> the wrong format, then the release.sh script must be updated to reflect
> this.
sorry, didnt know; have now checked dist/roll.sh, and see the problem:
the md5 checksum file is generated with either
Hi,
Graham Leggett schrieb:
> Can you point out where this is documented?
I'll try to dig that up.
>> The huge benefit of this format is that the binaries can then be checked
>> with same tools (option -c).
>
> With the downside that what you propose only works on Linux.
huh? nope - these tools a
On 24.09.2009 15:35, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
>>> The huge benefit of this format is that the binaries can then be checked
>>> with same tools (option -c).
>>
>> With the downside that what you propose only works on Linux.
>
> Rather, it only works o
> -Original Message-
> From: Guenter Knauf
> Sent: Donnerstag, 24. September 2009 15:48
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [vote] release httpd-2.2.14?
>
> Graham Leggett schrieb:
> > The checksums are generated by the release.sh script, and
> if they are in
> > the wrong form
Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> Can you point out where this is documented?
> I'll try to dig that up.
If you can, please.
It would be better to use a common format if one does exist.
>> With the downside that what you propose only works on Linux.
> huh? nope - these tools are available on Win32 too; a
Nick Kew writes:
> On 23 Sep 2009, at 14:40, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
>
>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15866
>
> Hey, you're a committer now! Any reason you didn't just commit?
>
> A patch will generally get more review in /trunk/ than in bugzilla
> if that's your concer
Graham Leggett schrieb:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>
>>> Can you point out where this is documented?
>> I'll try to dig that up.
>
> If you can, please.
I think what I meant were the pointers on the download side:
http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
see down last sentence - however its not explained
Guenter Knauf schrieb:
> Graham Leggett schrieb:
With the downside that what you propose only works on Linux.
>>> huh? nope - these tools are available on Win32 too; and where is a
>>> downside at all?
>> Ok, now what you propose only works on Linux and Windows. *BSD? MacOSX?
>> Others?
> http
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Can you point out where this is documented?
>>> I'll try to dig that up.
>> If you can, please.
> I think what I meant were the pointers on the download side:
> http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
> see down last sentence - however its not explained how to check
> automa
Graham Leggett schrieb:
> openssl md5 offers a -verify option to verify the signature, and this
> works on a wider set of platforms than md5sum does.
can you please post the commandline which automatically checks with help
of .md5 ?
thanks, Gün.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>
> Can you point out where this is documented?
> >>> I'll try to dig that up.
> >> If you can, please.
> > I think what I meant were the pointers on the download side:
> > http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
> >
Hi,
Graham Leggett schrieb:
> As the roll.sh script is the current authoritative mechanism for how md5
> signatures are created, and roll.sh makes no guarantee as to the format
> of the md5 file, all claims made to date that the signatures are in the
> wrong format are therefore false.
agreed, but
trawick wrote:
> Expectations of n users trump some the behavior of a helper script used
> by a few people, for our rather huge values of n.
Development on httpd is done in the open, and all our processes,
including our release processes, are transparent, and anybody is free to
improve upon our p
Guenter Knauf wrote:
> can you please post the commandline which automatically checks with help
> of .md5 ?
md5 httpd-2.2.14.tar.bz2 | cmp - httpd-2.2.14.tar.bz2.md5
Annoyingly, "openssl md5" and "md5" give the same output, but with
whitespace inserted at a different place. In this case, usi
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> trawick wrote:
>
> > Expectations of n users trump some the behavior of a helper script used
> > by a few people, for our rather huge values of n.
>
> Development on httpd is done in the open, and all our processes,
> including our release
Hi,
Graham Leggett schrieb:
> Now that a release is being done on a platform other than Linux,
> suddenly some people are complaining[1].
>
> Not fixing the problem, not submitting patches, just complaining.
I hope you dont target me here - I did quickly come up with a patch;
might be my patch is
Oh, for crying out loud, get a grip folks. There is no "standard"
md5 file format. It isn't even a good way to validate the build
in the first place -- the signature file exists for that purpose.
If you don't like the file format, write a friggin perl script
to read whatever is there and feed i
On 09/24/2009 04:25 PM, poir...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: poirier
> Date: Thu Sep 24 14:25:19 2009
> New Revision: 818492
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=818492&view=rev
> Log:
> mod_cache: don't cache incomplete responses, per RFC 2616, 13.8.
>
> PR: 15866
>
> Modified:
> http
Ruediger Pluem writes:
> On 09/24/2009 04:25 PM, poir...@apache.org wrote:
>> + If there's some other cache provider that has to read the whole
>> + cached body to fill in the brigade, though, that would make
>> + this rather expensive.
>
> Exactly for this reason I don't like t
On 09/24/2009 10:18 PM, Dan Poirier wrote:
> Ruediger Pluem writes:
>
>> On 09/24/2009 04:25 PM, poir...@apache.org wrote:
>>> + If there's some other cache provider that has to read the whole
>>> + cached body to fill in the brigade, though, that would make
>>> + this rather
Looks good on Mac OS 10.6.1, with a *
- gpg signature checks on tar.bz2 download
- builds with CC="gcc -arch i386"*
- perl test framework passes
* Without CC="gcc -arch i386" apr failed some tests (testfmt, one
other), so I played it safe and built everything with -arch i386.
--
Dan Poirier
Guys, I think we missed one...
traw...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: trawick
> Date: Wed Sep 23 20:31:44 2009
> New Revision: 818242
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=818242&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix a make install DESTDIR problem handling the reference manual.
> The currently-unused rule for i
Hi,
here's based on input from Rainer and Rüdiger my last trial unless I get
further positive comments instead of disappointing ones ...
highlighted:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/testchecksum/testchecksums.sh.html
plaintext:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/testchecksum/testchecksums.sh.txt
wit
Guenter Knauf wrote:
>
> If there's acceptance, and we commit it, I will also write some lines to
> explain how to use the common spreaded checksum tools to verify tarballs
> which we can then either add to the download page; or better add a
> separate static html page, and link to it from downloa
On 24.09.2009 23:11, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi,
> here's based on input from Rainer and Rüdiger my last trial unless I get
> further positive comments instead of disappointing ones ...
> highlighted:
> http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/testchecksum/testchecksums.sh.html
> plaintext:
> http://people.
Hi,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> If there's acceptance, and we commit it, I will also write some lines to
>> explain how to use the common spreaded checksum tools to verify tarballs
>> which we can then either add to the download page; or better add a
>> separate static h
Graham Leggett schrieb:
> Hi all,
>
> The tarballs are (will soon be) at http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/.
>
> This release contains fixes for the following security issues:
>
> *) SECURITY: CVE-2009-2699 (cve.mitre.org)
> Fixed in APR 1.3.9. Faulty error handling in the Solaris
>
On Sep 24, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
here's based on input from Rainer and Rüdiger my last trial unless
I get
further positive comments instead of disappointing ones ...
highlighted:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/testchecksum/testchecksums.sh.html
plaintext:
http://people.
Hi,
Roy T. Fielding schrieb:
> I get
>
> % sh testchecksums.sh fred
>
> Generating MD5/SHA1 checksum files ...
>
> openssl: creating md5 checksum file for fred.tar.gz ...
> openssl: creating sha1 checksum file for fred.tar.gz ...
> openssl: creating md5 checksum file for fred.tar.bz2 ...
> opens
Dan Poirier wrote:
> What I'd been thinking about, but haven't implemented yet, was extending
> the cache provider API (in trunk only) so we can ask the cache provider
> for the size.
>
> Your idea of a wrapper function sounds good for 2.2 though, since it
> doesn't require an API change. How ab
Graham Leggett wrote:
> +/-1
> [ ] Release httpd-2.2.14 as GA
+1 on MacOSX v10.5.8, RHEL5 and FC8.
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
odd question, but there is a request for X-Forwarded-For to apply to the
forward-proxy mode of mod_proxy_http.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/XFF_project
illustrates that Apache isn't even a proxy server [supporting this feature].
Does anyone want to take a walk through why we never enabled this
On 25 Sep 2009, at 06:32, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47447
--- Comment #2 from Will Rowe 2009-09-24
22:32:34 PDT ---
Here's my problem with the RequestHeader hacks. They are hacks.
We have a whole registration system to provide additiona
39 matches
Mail list logo
