Could some people take a look at the hcheck backport proposal
in STATUS for 2.4.26...
tia
On Apr 20, 2017 15:06, "André Malo" wrote:
* William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> Please re-validate your assumptions before we proceed with this
> discussion. I'll be interested in your findings.
I did. I've decided to drop out of that "discussion".
I'm sorry if I offended you, or was too assertive in
Hi all,
I noticed that the version of mod_brotli that has been backported to 2.4.x
lacks a few Makefile changes from trunk. This results in a failing Unix
build when mod_brotli is not being built. Another issue is that by default
the CMakeLists.txt file refers to invalid library filenames.
Hi Evgeny,
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Evgeny Kotkov
wrote:
>
> With the backport being in place in the 2.4.x branch, these changes no longer
> merge cleanly from trunk. I can prepare a backport nomination for them that
> resolves the conflicts and add it to the 2.4.x STATUS.
>
> What do y
On 02/15/2017 05:08 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
[with the patch]
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Does the attached patch work for you?
I don't like it too much (if ever relevent), we could also possibly
special case the EOR brigade (looks a bit hacky to me) or create
tmp_bb on c
On 02/15/2017 10:10 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
How about creating it from c->pool and storing it in c->notes for the lifetime
of c?
Would that be unsafe for HTTP/2? Can multiple requests (that use
ap_request_core_filter) be active on the same connection at once?
--Jacob
Hi Jacob,
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
>
> Unfortunately the patch just moves the crash to another location. We can't
> call APR_BRIGADE_EMPTY() on a brigade that's pointing at junk. I think a
> bucket that cleans up the brigade it's a part of is just not a good idea. :
On 04/25/2017 04:02 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Let me remind this a bit, it's been a long time :)
Will have a look at it tomorrow hopefully..
No problem; sorry for springing it on you again after two months of
silence. :D
--Jacob
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 05:47:53PM +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> Is the failure really expected w/o listener buckets?
>> It happens on bind ("Address already in use: AH00072: make_sock"),
>> which is indeed not an issue with SO_REUSEPORT.
>>
>> I
I have one, command line makefiles and all. I just haven't had time to
run a test build yet though lloking at it looks fine, but I like to test
first.
On 4/25/2017 2:07 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Hi Evgeny,
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Evgeny Kotkov
wrote:
With the backport being in plac
Actually, I'll test here in a while and commit tomorrow.
On 4/25/2017 6:20 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
I have one, command line makefiles and all. I just haven't had time to
run a test build yet though lloking at it looks fine, but I like to test
first.
On 4/25/2017 2:07 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Hi
Reiterating the question... from the absence of any answer - I'm presuming
our project is not germane to the coming ApacheCon event? As much as
I enjoy the IoT field, afraid this conference may fall out of scope for me.
I know Jim registered as 'present' and presenting, Rich is registered as
both
12 matches
Mail list logo