On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
>
> A longish read - basically while 2.4.12 had few errors when built against
> OpenSSL 0.9.8 LibreSSL has quite a few errors - perhaps because it has
> removed many "unsafe" crypto combinations. The root question is: is this
> LibreSSL misbehav
I'll look at it and hopefully understand something. but tomorrow.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 7:56 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
>
>> Here I have the output of just one test t/ssl/pr12355.t - and note the
>> differences in the ssl_access_log -
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> Here I have the output of just one test t/ssl/pr12355.t - and note the
> differences in the ssl_access_log - not just the error messages (I have
> removed all "debug" messages from the logs as they were "in the way".
>
> LibreSSL is version
With 4/5 of the 2.2.30 voters having re-reviewed 2.2.31, and the single
s/-1/+1/ based on this re-roll, I'm confident in calling this vote a
success,
and am pushing this release to the mirrors for announcement tomorrow.
Thanks all for all the reviews of both 2.2 candidates (and all of the 4 2.4
ca
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:44 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.31, can be found
> in;
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> +/-1
>
[+1] Release 2.2.31 GA (apr 1.5.2, apr-util 1.5.4)
>
My own vote after preparing and exercisin
Moving this to a thread with a better title!
A longish read - basically while 2.4.12 had few errors when built
against OpenSSL 0.9.8 LibreSSL has quite a few errors - perhaps because
it has removed many "unsafe" crypto combinations. The root question is:
is this LibreSSL misbehaving, or are th
Am 16.07.2015 um 17:26 schrieb Yann Ylavic:
Yes, and with --enable-load-all-modules (not so common, I think, when
not testing with the framework...).
Exactly, thats mostly a flag to produce non-production bus test ready
configs. Not so nice that it doesn't startup, but I would be astonished
i
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
>
> btw - I am much more interested in the ssl tests and whether it is a failed
> test (going back to MC4 128-bit) when the initial connection was much
> better. I assume this is not logjam (or some other horrible recent OpenSSL
> TLS renegotiat
Thanks, Jim!
> Am 16.07.2015 um 17:22 schrieb Jim Jagielski :
>
> Testing as we speak... will commit if all OK :)
>
>> On Jul 15, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Stefan Eissing
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...got the test framework to PASS on my OS X against httpd/trunk built.
>>
>> I added more description of what
Nothing serious of course - AND the advantage is that I do not have to do a
new build to switch to pre-fork (which was the old way iirc).
So - was I the first to find a bug in the new release :P
btw - I am much more interested in the ssl tests and whether it is a failed
test (going back to MC4 12
I really should have titled this differently - sigh!
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> I am a bit behind - yet looking forward.
>
> I wish to recall a pleasant get together last April in Texas just before
> ApacheCon. At that time I mentioned LibreSSL and building httpd agai
Yes, and with --enable-load-all-modules (not so common, I think, when
not testing with the framework...).
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Yeah... gr.
>
> In any case, this would affect only those w/ virgin builds, right?
>
>> On Jul 16, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Yann Ylavic
Testing as we speak... will commit if all OK :)
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Stefan Eissing
> wrote:
>
> ...got the test framework to PASS on my OS X against httpd/trunk built.
>
> I added more description of what I found in the README and checked that in. I
> have the attached patch to th
Yeah... gr.
In any case, this would affect only those w/ virgin builds, right?
> On Jul 16, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
>> My comment is that with 2.4.12 the same configure did not do this. This is
>> new behavior.
>
> Pro
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1661848
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53882
Looks like it was explicitly changed to track mpms like any other shared
module, and as Bill noted, --enable-load-all-modules simply loaded them
all mpms included.
Andy
On 07/16
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> My comment is that with 2.4.12 the same configure did not do this. This is
> new behavior.
Probably a consequence of [1] which may not play very well with
--enable-load-all-modules.
[1] http://svn.apache.org/r1661848
My comment is that with 2.4.12 the same configure did not do this. This is
new behavior.
I was testing with 2.4.12 all day yesterday, using the same build scripts
today with 2.4.16 came up differently.
So now, after the build I have this difference in httpd.conf
root@x065:[/data/prj/apache/httpd
On Jul 16, 2015 8:04 AM, "Michael Felt" wrote:
>
> First little thing I ran into - that I did not have with 2.4.12 is this:
>
> root@x065:[/data/prj/apache/httpd/test]/opt/httpd/sbin/apachectl start
> AH00534: httpd: Configuration error: More than one MPM loaded.
> root@x065:[/data/prj/apache/htt
I do not know why both are there - something to do with the "configure"
statement perhaps. As I said above - not had this show up before.
In any case, just finished ApacheTest and is looking very good.
All tests successful.
Files=110, Tests=4843, 364 wallclock secs ( 3.38 usr 0.50 sys + 88.88 cu
Am 16.07.2015 um 15:03 schrieb Michael Felt:
First little thing I ran into - that I did not have with 2.4.12 is this:
root@x065:[/data/prj/apache/httpd/test]/opt/httpd/sbin/apachectl start
AH00534: httpd: Configuration error: More than one MPM loaded.
Granted, I should perhaps change to pre-fo
First little thing I ran into - that I did not have with 2.4.12 is this:
root@x065:[/data/prj/apache/httpd/test]/opt/httpd/sbin/apachectl start
AH00534: httpd: Configuration error: More than one MPM loaded.
Granted, I should perhaps change to pre-fork (I noticed some had only
tested that) - but I
Should have thought of that earlier :p @ me.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> refresh your browser cache. :)
>
> > On Jul 16, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
> >
> > Also, the home page still says 2.4.12 and 2.2.29 - but the Download page
> is up to date...
> >
> >
refresh your browser cache. :)
> On Jul 16, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
>
> Also, the home page still says 2.4.12 and 2.2.29 - but the Download page is
> up to date...
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Oops. Sorry.
> > On Jul 15, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Bostjan S
I see 2.4.16 since yesterday (if I remember correctly). Are you talking
about http://httpd.apache.org/ ?
b.
On 16 July 2015 at 14:22, Michael Felt wrote:
> Also, the home page still says 2.4.12 and 2.2.29 - but the Download page
> is up to date...
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Jim Jagie
Also, the home page still says 2.4.12 and 2.2.29 - but the Download page is
up to date...
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Oops. Sorry.
> > On Jul 15, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Bostjan Skufca wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > since 2.4.10 and 2.2.29 the annou...@httpd.apache.org is
I am a bit behind - yet looking forward.
I wish to recall a pleasant get together last April in Texas just before
ApacheCon. At that time I mentioned LibreSSL and building httpd against it
(actually mod_ssl is all it amounts to).
The build itself was quite simple - I shall repeat that now for 2.4
Oops. Sorry.
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Bostjan Skufca wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> since 2.4.10 and 2.2.29 the annou...@httpd.apache.org is abandoned. Is this
> intentional?
>
> Someone already asked about this last year:
> http://marc.info/?l=apache-httpd-dev&m=141157921203967&w=2
>
> If this
Hello everybody,
I would be very grateful if somebody could look into bug report 58118
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58118
The issue concerns the logging of a 503 status code in
modules/proxy/mod_proxy_fcgi.c at 836 although a 200 has been sent to
the client. This can happen i
28 matches
Mail list logo
