Re: svn commit: r1790999 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: Makefile.win docs/manual/platform/win_compiling.xml modules/ssl/mod_ssl.mak support/ab.c support/abs.mak

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: > > No applink.c is installed to PREFIX/include/openssl. I neglected to consider > building with cmake, my bad. > > Adding the include is the easiest way to deal with this. Yea, I was confused...

Re: svn commit: r1790999 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: Makefile.win docs/manual/platform/win_compiling.xml modules/ssl/mod_ssl.mak support/ab.c support/abs.mak

On 4/11/2017 5:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: They will say fix ours. Bottom line, it's been moved from include/openssl/applink.c to ms/applink.c So, ok, will have to add /ms to the includes or do you have a better

Re: svn commit: r1790999 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: Makefile.win docs/manual/platform/win_compiling.xml modules/ssl/mod_ssl.mak support/ab.c support/abs.mak

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: > > They will say fix ours. Bottom line, it's been moved from > include/openssl/applink.c to ms/applink.c > > So, ok, will have to add /ms to the includes or do you have a better > suggestion? That suggests that OpenSSL make

Re: Fixing more OpenSSL callback crashes

On 04/10/2017 03:59 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: So it looks like my test program might still be a possible solution for detecting whether we need a callback at configure time, unless anyone knows of a platform where two thread-local errnos can have the same address some of the time and different

Re: svn commit: r1790999 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: Makefile.win docs/manual/platform/win_compiling.xml modules/ssl/mod_ssl.mak support/ab.c support/abs.mak

On 4/11/2017 3:16 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:36 AM, wrote: Author: gsmith Date: Tue Apr 11 16:36:25 2017 New Revision: 1790999 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1790999=rev Log: Retro win32 command-line build allow building with OpenSSL

Re: svn commit: r1790999 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: Makefile.win docs/manual/platform/win_compiling.xml modules/ssl/mod_ssl.mak support/ab.c support/abs.mak

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:36 AM, wrote: > Author: gsmith > Date: Tue Apr 11 16:36:25 2017 > New Revision: 1790999 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1790999=rev > Log: > Retro win32 command-line build > > allow building with OpenSSL 1.1.0 > > ab.c (abs) > -- >

Re: header file distribution bug - ap_config_auto.h not private

Hello Jacob, On 2017-04-11 17:04, Jacob Champion wrote: > To me, what you've described looks like a bug. > > I have no idea how easy or difficult it would be to remove the internal > config macros from our distributed headers -- it looks like we've been > doing this for a *long* time. And if

Re: header file distribution bug - ap_config_auto.h not private

On 04/11/2017 12:59 PM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek wrote: Can anyone please provide some feedback? (no, your bug is no bug. yep, we are looking into it. yep, it's a bug) To me, what you've described looks like a bug. I have no idea how easy or difficult it would be to remove the internal config

header file distribution bug - ap_config_auto.h not private

Can anyone please provide some feedback? (no, your bug is no bug. yep, we are looking into it. yep, it's a bug) There's nothing worse than being ignored. Some of the typical autotools defines made it into the current package and they interfere with one's own build process: one example (there

Re: mpm_winnt lingering close

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > well, your change just reverses the order of check and call. far be it from > me to say what is better. just wanted to point that out. You scared me :) (I thought I had flipped fetching and testing the

Re: mpm_winnt lingering close

Re: svn commit: r1790917 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

> On Apr 11, 2017, at 10:01 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > > That's why my veto was just withdrawn, the sources *do* build, from > the git tag. Mine was from the gzipped tarball downloaded from Github.

Re: mpm_winnt lingering close

well, your change just reverses the order of check and call. far be it from me to say what is better. just wanted to point that out. > Am 11.04.2017 um 16:14 schrieb William A Rowe Jr : > > Steffen, I think we are missing an edge case, if you could retest with >

Re: mpm_winnt lingering close

Steffen, I think we are missing an edge case, if you could retest with http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1790978 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/winnt/child.c?r1=1758310=1790978=patch is the net patch between the current 2.4.25 and now. Stefan - if the socket

Re: svn commit: r1790917 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > I do not understand why we are discussing brotli build issues here. We do not > plan to ship it, only to link against their now supposedly stable API if we > find it. If Linux distros are willing to build and

Re: mpm_winnt lingering close

Bill, submitted in trunk and proposed for 2.4.x. Thanks for testing. -Stefan > Am 11.04.2017 um 15:30 schrieb William A Rowe Jr : > > Great news, thanks Steffen! > > Stefan - if you apply to trunk and 2.4.x (I'm already +1 on inspection) I have > regression testing on

Re: mpm_winnt lingering close

Great news, thanks Steffen! Stefan - if you apply to trunk and 2.4.x (I'm already +1 on inspection) I have regression testing on Windows to do today and tomorrow and can give this a little more exercise. Cheers, Bill On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Steffen wrote: >

Re: svn commit: r1790806 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> On Apr 10, 2017, at 11:55 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> >>> - -1: wrowe (Premature, waiting on github.com/google/brotli 0.6 release) >>> - NOTE: Awaiting next release post 0.5.2 >> >> I'm

Re: svn commit: r1790917 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

> On Apr 11, 2017, at 9:14 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> /me confused. Why the -1 again? Are you having problems >> building brotli? Or is it that you don't like how >> brotli is being built? Or

Re: svn commit: r1790917 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

I do not understand why we are discussing brotli build issues here. We do not plan to ship it, only to link against their now supposedly stable API if we find it. If Linux distros are willing to build and package it and solve any conflicts they might have in naming bins, I am totally fine with

Re: svn commit: r1790917 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > /me confused. Why the -1 again? Are you having problems > building brotli? Or is it that you don't like how > brotli is being built? Or what? The docs were a mess - issues I had address on dev@. Until Monday, after you

Re: mpm_winnt lingering close

Running now with Patch on AL windows with v1.10.1-git, nghttp2 1.21.1 , no warning anymore seen. On Tuesday 11/04/2017 at 10:23, Stefan Eissing wrote: Am 03.04.2017 um 21:17 schrieb William A Rowe Jr : On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Eric Covener

Re: mpm_winnt lingering close

> Am 03.04.2017 um 21:17 schrieb William A Rowe Jr : > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Eric Covener wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Stefan Eissing >> wrote: >>> Question is: do we "fix" mpm_winnt or is there a

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Nice work, looking forward to seeing this backported! > Am 10.04.2017 um 18:24 schrieb Evgeny Kotkov : > > Jim Jagielski writes: > >> Let's shoot for a 2.4.26 within the next handful of >> weeks. There are some entries in STATUS that could >> use