On 2016-06-16 19:07, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.21 can be found
> at the usual place:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.21 GA.
>
> [ ] +1: Good to go
> [ ] +0: meh
> [ ] -1:
Hi,
I'm not familiar with sed implementation, but 'copy_to_genbuf' looks
spurious.
Actually it only expands a buffer if some space is needed, but nothing
is copied.
Should it look like:
static void copy_to_genbuf(sed_eval_t *eval, const char* sz)
{
int len = strlen(sz);
unsigned
The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.21 can be found
at the usual place:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.21 GA.
[ ] +1: Good to go
[ ] +0: meh
[ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why.
Vote will last the normal 72
Sorry - false alarm, per the open spec for limits.h the patch -is-
correct...
{PATH_MAX}Maximum number of bytes in a pathname, including the terminating
null character.
Minimum Acceptable Value: {_POSIX_PATH_MAX}
[XSI] [image: [Option Start]] Minimum Acceptable Value:
{_XOPEN_PATH_MAX} [image:
ATTN Jim,
I presume you didn't read the note below?
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:59 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> This looks inverted. The buffer should be MAX+1.
>
> This logic error leads to paths valid in one context, which fail later in
> the next bit of code.
> On Jun
I'll be doing a T of 2.4.21 around noonish today...
Totally agree. This is all post 2.4.21 with the "Header unset Upgrade"
available as workaround for 2.4.21.
> Am 16.06.2016 um 13:56 schrieb William A Rowe Jr :
>
>
> On Jun 16, 2016 3:30 AM, "Stefan Eissing"
> wrote:
> >
> > There are three
This looks inverted. The buffer should be MAX+1.
This logic error leads to paths valid in one context, which fail later in
the next bit of code.
On Jun 16, 2016 12:17 AM, wrote:
> Author: jailletc36
> Date: Thu Jun 16 05:17:35 2016
> New Revision: 1748653
>
> URL:
On Jun 16, 2016 3:30 AM, "Stefan Eissing"
wrote:
>
> There are three things to address, one core related and one HTTP/2
related:
>
> 1. The whole discussion arose, because there are clients that seriously
choke on
>*any* Upgrade: response header. No matter what
There are three things to address, one core related and one HTTP/2 related:
1. The whole discussion arose, because there are clients that seriously choke on
*any* Upgrade: response header. No matter what tokens it contains. Those
*can* now
be addressed via mod_header with a "Header unset
Saw last minute change mod-http2 to version 1.5.11.
Running now:
mod_http2 (v1.5.11, feats=, nghttp2 1.11.1), initializing...
-Original Message-
From: Steffen
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 11:57 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: h2_proxy_util.c, is this going make 2.4.21?
11 matches
Mail list logo