Am 30.11.2010 01:55, schrieb Dr Stephen Henson:
See of the patch for bug #50121 resolves this for you.
There's a slightly cleaner way of doing that r1040366 in trunk fixes it for me.
thanks Steve, works fine. I've closed bug #50121.
Gün.
On 30/11/2010 00:03, Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
> On 29/11/2010 21:46, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>> ssl_util_stapling.c issues warnings / breaks when compiled with OSSL 1.0.0;
>> MSVC
>> warns:
>> \modules\ssl\ssl_util_stapling.c(140) : warning C4133: '=' : incompatible
>> types
>> - from '
On 29/11/2010 21:46, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> ssl_util_stapling.c issues warnings / breaks when compiled with OSSL 1.0.0;
> MSVC
> warns:
> \modules\ssl\ssl_util_stapling.c(140) : warning C4133: '=' : incompatible
> types
> - from 'struct stack_st_OPENSSL_STRING *' to 'struct stack_st_S
On 11/24/2010 12:56 AM, Edgar Frank wrote:
> Hi Pete,
>
> thanks for your reply (and all the others who replied).
>
> This sounds quite interesting and I'll see what I can make of it.
>
> [...@http developers]
> Looking at the Apache HTTP Test site, is this what is used to test every HTTP
> rel
Hi Steve,
ssl_util_stapling.c issues warnings / breaks when compiled with OSSL
1.0.0; MSVC warns:
\modules\ssl\ssl_util_stapling.c(140) : warning C4133: '=' :
incompatible types - from 'struct stack_st_OPENSSL_STRING *' to 'struct
stack_st_STRING *'
C:\buildprep\httpd-2.3.x.10\modules\ssl\ssl_u
On 11/29/2010 2:10 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It stopped my show :-)
>
> It's done, it builds (now) and I've seen it said a few times that version
> numbers are
> cheap. IIRC 2.3.7 got stopped for similar somewhere in the *nix world but why
> split hairs.
>
> The Lexical has moved fro
Hi,
It stopped my show :-)
It's done, it builds (now) and I've seen it said a few times that
version numbers are cheap. IIRC 2.3.7 got stopped for similar somewhere
in the *nix world but why split hairs.
The Lexical has moved from mod_ssl.dsp to libhttpd.dsp.
A big thank you to all of you!
On 24/11/2010 07:07, Kaspar Brand wrote:
> On 20.11.2010 20:24, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Joe Orton wrote:
>>> We could support this better by having a new set of exports:
>>>
>>> SSL_{CLIENT,SERVER}_{I,S}_UTF8DN_*(_n)?
>>>
>>> (or something similarly named)
>>>
>>> which work
On 11/26/2010 6:57 AM, Oden Eriksson wrote:
> Hello.
>
> We're currenty experiencing a strange segfault in Mandriva Cooker (the
> development branch) with the latest apache-2.2.17, gcc-4.5.1 and all that.
>
> Compiling apache using "-DDEBUG=1 -DAPR_BUCKET_DEBUG=1 -DAPR_RING_DEBUG=1" or
> withou
On 11/23/2010 3:35 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> I too have no problem if I do not need to regenerate these files. I thought
> the ones there were skeletons, not buildable files. My mistake.
>
> I'll patch & build. There will be other problems.
>
> In util_expr_scan.c line 612 the
On 11/21/2010 11:39 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi,
> in mpm_common.c we have:
>
> #ifndef HAVE_INITGROUPS
> int initgroups(const char *name, gid_t basegid)
> {
> #if defined(_OSD_POSIX) || defined(OS2) || defined(WIN32) || defined(NETWARE)
> return 0;
> #else
>[...]
> the only other 2 source
On 11/21/2010 2:38 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>>
>> One of my TODO patches is to add this same functionality in other places.
>> The first that
>> comes to mind (and something that has pestered me in the past) is
>> AuthLDAPBindPassword
>> (mod_authnz_ldap). Would anyone like to suggest other pote
On 11/20/2010 4:05 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> In mod_ssl there is a very handy option of making an exec callout for
> SSLPassPhraseDialog
> rather than to put a password for your private key in the conf file. The
> obvious benefit
> here is that one can then design a solution to meet any arbitra
On 11/29/2010 6:48 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Anyone opposed if I declare 2.3.9 DOA and T&R 2.3.10?
>
> On Nov 23, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Pre-test tarballs of httpd-2.3.9-alpha are available at:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jim/httpd-2.3.9-alpha/
>>
>> Please try 'em
On 11/29/2010 1:06 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 4:59 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Post r1032073, trunk has not built in Windows as suggested in the log for
>> r1032073.
>>
>> I see util_expr.c needs to go and util_expr_*.c/h need to be added to the
>> build. What
>>
On 11/22/2010 4:59 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Post r1032073, trunk has not built in Windows as suggested in the log for
> r1032073.
>
> I see util_expr.c needs to go and util_expr_*.c/h need to be added to the
> build. What
> baffles me is the .y & .l files. AFIAK, I have never buil
On 11/23/2010 11:22 AM, Mario Brandt wrote:
> - 1
> doesn't build on Win 7 x64 cause libhttpd doesn't build.
I should be able to fix this later this afternoon.
> 1>-- Build started: Project: libhttpd, Configuration: Release Win32 --
> 1>Compiling...
> 1>util_mutex.c
> 1>.\server\util_mu
On 11/23/2010 8:22 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>
>> How about this one?
>> ./modules/session/mod_sesion_crypto.c:
>>
>> #if APU_MAJOR_VERSION == 1 && APU_MINOR_VERSION < 4
>>
>> #error session_crypto_module requires APR v1.4.0 or later
>>
>> ...
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Anyone opposed if I declare 2.3.9 DOA and T&R 2.3.10?
No objections from the noisy guy in the peanut gallery.
Gregg
On 29.11.2010 13:48, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Anyone opposed if I declare 2.3.9 DOA and T&R 2.3.10?
+1 (not opposed)
Rainer
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
> Sent: Montag, 29. November 2010 13:49
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: httpd-2.3.9-alpha test tarballs
>
> Anyone opposed if I declare 2.3.9 DOA and T&R 2.3.10?
+1
Regards
Rüdiger
Anyone opposed if I declare 2.3.9 DOA and T&R 2.3.10?
On Nov 23, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Pre-test tarballs of httpd-2.3.9-alpha are available at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jim/httpd-2.3.9-alpha/
>
> Please try 'em out and I'll make them official test tarballs...
>
22 matches
Mail list logo
