Am 29.02.2016 um 23:03 schrieb NormW:
G/M Rainer,
Any known reason your recent tweaks to automatically create the
mod_proxy exports list cannot be nominated for back-port to 2.4.x?
Not that I'm aware off. Things have settled a bit now, so probably it'
the time to propose a backport.
If ther
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> In general this looks fine. We only run in trouble if something provided in
> the Host header is longer then
> PROXY_WORKER_MAX_HOSTNAME_SIZE (in case of ProxyPreserveHost on). Then we
> loose the SNI hostname on these requests.
> Probab
G/M Rainer,
Any known reason your recent tweaks to automatically create the
mod_proxy exports list cannot be nominated for back-port to 2.4.x?
If there is a technical and/or time constraint I'll submit a patch for
at least a couple of symbols needed to build 2.4.x/modules/proxy.
Norm
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stefan,
>>
>> I've had a real lack of time lately to do much on trunk's mod_http2 on the
>> windows side. The new mod_proxy_http2 requires a few functions from
>> mod_http2 and
> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:06 PM, Stefan Eissing
> wrote:
>
>- And: it could be done for mod_proxy_http, too! I see no reason why a
> single
> thread cannot use pollsets to juggle a couple of http/1.1 backend
> connections
> on top of a http/2 master connection.
>
I've been digg
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:35 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> Huge props to everyone who's contributed on cmake for both httpd's build
> and for our components!
+1, very cool.
--
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> I've had a real lack of time lately to do much on trunk's mod_http2 on the
> windows side. The new mod_proxy_http2 requires a few functions from
> mod_http2 and with what time I have had I have been unsuccessful figuring
> out h
On 2016-02-29 06:06, Jim Jagielski wrote:
First of all, the idea is that the admin "trusts" whatever users are
allowed to use suexec. It's also understood that the risk associated
is directly related to how well tied-down the user account itself
is.
It's more of a first-past-the-door situation.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Bruno Raoult wrote:
>>>
>>> I did find a bug in mod_autoindex more than one year ago, about missing CSS
>>> class, and proposed a patch at s
On 2016-02-29 06:06, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Feb 26, 2016, at 7:50 PM, montt...@heavyspace.ca wrote:
This is not a question on how to use suexec, that's fairly clear. The
strict, hardwired conditions its willing to suexec under are also
spelled out pretty clear. My question is the nature of
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Bruno Raoult wrote:
>>
>> I did find a bug in mod_autoindex more than one year ago, about missing CSS
>> class, and proposed a patch at same time
>> (https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Bruno Raoult wrote:
>>
>> In order to find out by myself next time, how did you jump from r1648201
>> (which I
>> found from my bug/patch report) to r1651644 and then to 2.4.12 ?
>> I am missing some steps fo
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> It's about time for us to consider another release of the 2.4
>> branch... We've accumulated some good stuff, with some other
>> potential backports which could be *very* cool folded i
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> It's about time for us to consider another release of the 2.4
> branch... We've accumulated some good stuff, with some other
> potential backports which could be *very* cool folded into
> 2.4.19...
I just realized my rewrite regression didn'
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Is this 2.4 specific... Looking in trunk for
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33611
This patch is proposed on bz only for now, waiting for the OP to test...
>
>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Lenk, Micha
>> wrote:
>>
>>
[CCing the original bugs@ list and dev@ which I somehow added from my
first response.
Not sure bugs@ is to be addressed directly though, it is normally CCed
for bugzilla reports only...]
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Bruno Raoult wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Bruno Raoult wrote
Is this 2.4 specific... Looking in trunk for
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33611
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Lenk, Micha
> wrote:
>
> FWIW, I am a bit concerned about
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59045.
> If this will be fixed with 2.4.19, please go a
FWIW, I am a bit concerned about
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59045.
If this will be fixed with 2.4.19, please go ahead. :)
Regards,
Micha
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
> Gesendet: Montag, 29. Februar 2016 13:10
> An: httpd
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Bruno Raoult wrote:
>
> I did find a bug in mod_autoindex more than one year ago, about missing CSS
> class, and proposed a patch at same time
> (https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57227).
> It appears that this patch is still not applied in recent
Easy: +1
(and thanks for RMing yet again)
> Am 29.02.2016 um 13:09 schrieb Jim Jagielski :
>
> It's about time for us to consider another release of the 2.4
> branch... We've accumulated some good stuff, with some other
> potential backports which could be *very* cool folded into
> 2.4.19...
>
>
It's about time for us to consider another release of the 2.4
branch... We've accumulated some good stuff, with some other
potential backports which could be *very* cool folded into
2.4.19...
Looking at early/mid March and I'll be serving as RM.
Get those votes and backports in!
> On Feb 26, 2016, at 7:50 PM, montt...@heavyspace.ca wrote:
>
> This is not a question on how to use suexec, that's fairly clear. The
> strict, hardwired conditions its willing to suexec under are also spelled out
> pretty clear. My question is the nature of these requirements -- why they're
Am 29.02.2016 um 07:16 schrieb fab...@apache.org:
Maybe the reverse dns is working on your test address?
I checked it and yes it does work that way. I never knew it did.
Indeed.
This feature makes sense because it allows to allow a full domain, say
"apache.org", any host of which the inver
23 matches
Mail list logo
