On Monday 18 April 2011, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
> On Monday, April 18, 2011 10:36:13 Joe Orton wrote:
> > If you change the CGI script to send a 100 rather than 102, does
> > it work? LWP should treat all 1xx as interim responses so I'd
> > say it is an LWP bug.
>
> It is certainly triggered by t
On Sunday 17 April 2011, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2011 18:24:28 William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> > Suggestion - an EXEC_ON_READ 'DynamicModulesMax' directive, which
> > would let us conf_vector_length = total_modules +
> > dyn_modules_max; after the read_config, and finally lock d
there doesn't seem to be any immediate demand for renegotiation
> support, so it makes the most sense to leave it optional-to-enable
> rather than optional-to-disable.
If you want to protect some parts of your site with client
authentication, then you need to enable insecure renegotiation to
su
On Monday, April 18, 2011 10:36:13 Joe Orton wrote:
> If you change the CGI script to send a 100 rather than 102, does it
> work? LWP should treat all 1xx as interim responses so I'd say it is an
> LWP bug.
It is certainly triggered by the LWP version upgrade. I also agree that it's a
bug in L
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 05:51:42PM +0200, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> t/modules/proxy.t of the test framework contains at line 32 the following 2
> tests:
>
> $r = GET("/reverse/modules/cgi/nph-102.pl");
> ok t_cmp($r->code, 200, "reverse proxy to nph-102");
> ok t_cmp($r->content, "t
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 05:55:44PM +0200, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
> t/apache/if_sections.t needs the proxy module, t/modules/filter.t needs
> mod_case_filter.
Thanks, committed!
Regards, Joe
