On 23.11.2011 15:06, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 08:37:31AM +0100, Kaspar Brand wrote:
>> There are two approaches to fix 1): a) turn off verify_hostname
>> where needed (t/ssl/pr12355.t and t/ssl/pr43738.t are doing this
>> right now) or b) specify the CA cert (generated in t/conf/c
On 29 Nov 2011, at 02:37, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> FWIW
>
> * a normal build defaults to event
> * a multi-MPM build of 2.4 "should" build the MPMs as DSOs
+1.
This is what I'm trying to nail down - to get the packaging to work against the
ideal installation of httpd.
What I am also keen to do i
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:24 PM, wrote:
> Author: minfrin
> Date: Tue Nov 29 00:24:35 2011
> New Revision: 1207721
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1207721&view=rev
> Log:
> RPM: The default httpd mpm is now worker instead of prefork.
FWIW
* a normal build defaults to event
* a multi-M
On 28 Nov 2011, at 00:37, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> * With 'ProxyRequests off', we accept absolute urls like http://hostname/path
> for local requests, but we don't check that the hostname contained in it
> actually matches the Host header if there is one. The hostname from the URI
> is then used
mod_fcgid has serious long standing bugs which are reported in
bugzilla, see 51020, 50309 and 48949 .
Please look at it.
mod_fcgid has serious long standing bugs which are reported in
bugzilla, see 51020, 50309 and 48949 .
Please look at it.
On 27.11.2011 12:14, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Yes, that would be a good idea and I agree with Daniel that we should
use a distinct prefix or format. We currently have around 2700 calls
to *_log_?error in trunk, so a 4-digit number should be ok. Together
with for example AH as prefix for "Apache HTTP
- Original Message -
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:31:59 +0100
> Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>
> > On Sunday 13 November 2011, Nick Kew wrote:
> > > Indeed, checking those return values would be better. May have
> > > been lost when I separated out the i18n code from its origins in
> > > markup fi
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:31:59 +0100
Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Sunday 13 November 2011, Nick Kew wrote:
> > Indeed, checking those return values would be better. May have
> > been lost when I separated out the i18n code from its origins in
> > markup filtering.
>
> I have added some error checks
On Sunday 13 November 2011, Nick Kew wrote:
> Indeed, checking those return values would be better. May have
> been lost when I separated out the i18n code from its origins in
> markup filtering.
I have added some error checks and a few ap_asserts(). Do you want to
review it before I merge it in
On Monday 28 November 2011, Nick Kew wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2011, at 00:37, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > while browsing a bit through Michael Zalewski's new Tangled Web
> > book, I was reminded again that we are very forgiving about what
> > we accept as a request. Is this really a good idea
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:37:34PM +0100, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Don't know whether that could happen here, but could "OPTIONS *" be
> a problem?
Hmmm, another good question.
What should mod_rewrite or mod_proxy's translate_name hook do for a
request-URI of "*"? 2616 says:
The asterisk
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 04:53:46PM +0100, "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" wrote:
> One comment though: Shouldn't we check r->unparsed_uri as well (at least
> in the proxy case, as it may be used by ap_proxy_trans_match instead of
> r->uri)?
Thanks for looking at this!
I'm not sure how we could check r
It would be great if we had the orig's somewhere... Long ago I
did the ASF logo so let me look around to see if I can find
the orig Powered By logo.
PS: Can we *please* drop gifs? :)
On Nov 27, 2011, at 4:50 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> docs/icons/apache_pb2* contain the version number (
Am 27.11.2011 18:14, schrieb Stefan Fritsch:
Yes, that would be a good idea and I agree with Daniel that we should
use a distinct prefix or format. We currently have around 2700 calls
to *_log_?error in trunk, so a 4-digit number should be ok. Together
with for example AH as prefix for "Apache HT
- Original Message -
> On 11/27/2011 6:56 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
> > No, I looked it up after, it's one of the Swiss fonts from MS
> > Office, couldn't grab back
> > the mail.
>
> It looks pretty '90's style now... maybe a bump up to some
> more modern face?
Oh well, the last two or t
16 matches
Mail list logo
