Re: httpd-framework: a few forgotten need_module()s

2011-04-18 Thread Joe Orton
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

Re: Is this a test framework bug?

2011-04-18 Thread Joe Orton
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, this is

Re: Is this a test framework bug?

2011-04-18 Thread Torsten Förtsch
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

re: SSL related DoS

2011-04-18 Thread Nick Gearls
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

Re: ap_read_config in 2.3.11

2011-04-18 Thread Stefan Fritsch
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 down

Re: Is this a test framework bug?

2011-04-18 Thread Stefan Fritsch
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 the LWP