Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

Aye, I had originally added the support for PROXY in remoteip since... well... it's used to extract remote IP info. The funny part is that I had committed my additions within an hour of the third party code being donated and incorporated without realizing it... so I removed my changes and added

Re: mod_md, le rename Evgeniy and Ameet

Hi Evgeniy Can you help Stefan work part this issue? Thanks a lot On Dec 13, 2017 11:38 AM, "Stefan Eissing" wrote: To all early adopters of mod_md: I just found out that my config rename in v1.1.0 is not backward compatible for several, valid configurations. If

Re: mod_proxy_uwsgi build errors

On 12/13/2017 04:27 PM, Steffen wrote: > I know, for example: > > util_expr_scan.c At least this one includes inttypes.h which seems according to the comments is only available on C99. Should we create an apr_uint8_t in apr and / or simply use apr_uint16_t in the uint8_t cases? >

Re: mod_proxy_uwsgi build errors

C99 is promiscuous. I thought we were holding to C89 on the 2.4 branch? On Dec 13, 2017 09:23, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > We use uint8_t numerous places elsewhere. > > > On Dec 13, 2017, at 9:44 AM, Steffen wrote: > > > > > > @jim > > > > You adjusted

mod_md, le rename

To all early adopters of mod_md: I just found out that my config rename in v1.1.0 is not backward compatible for several, valid configurations. If you deplay the new version (or get it now via PPAs), you most likely need to rename "

Re: mod_proxy_uwsgi build errors

I know, for example: util_expr_scan.c mod_brotli.c h2_filter.c h2_proxy_session.c h2_proxy_util.c h2_session.c h2_stream.c h2_stream.h h2_util.c h2_util.h But there no errors, they building fine. On Wednesday 13/12/2017 at 16:23, Jim Jagielski wrote: We use uint8_t numerous places

Re: mod_proxy_uwsgi build errors

We use uint8_t numerous places elsewhere. > On Dec 13, 2017, at 9:44 AM, Steffen wrote: > > > @jim > > You adjusted uint16_t > > Still errors: > > > mod_proxy_uwsgi.c(186): warning C4267: '=': conversion from 'size_t' to > 'apr_uint16_t', possible loss of data >

Re: mod_md 1.1.0 build warnings

Is fixed with Revision 1818031 On Wednesday 13/12/2017 at 13:46, Steffen wrote: Not serious (I think): mod_md.c(285): warning C4003: not enough actual parameters for macro 'APLOGNO' mod_md.c(307): warning C4003: not enough actual parameters for macro 'APLOGNO' mod_md.c(784): warning

Re: mod_proxy_uwsgi build errors

@jim You adjusted uint16_t Still errors: mod_proxy_uwsgi.c(186): warning C4267: '=': conversion from 'size_t' to 'apr_uint16_t', possible loss of data mod_proxy_uwsgi.c(187): error C2065: 'uint8_t': undeclared identifier mod_proxy_uwsgi.c(187): error C2064: term does not evaluate to a

Re: mod_md and ManagedDomain

Stefan wrote: /Code request for a Windows Service restart call: 0/ I started some time ago a discussion at: https://github.com/icing/mod_md/issues/17 There I want it as an option for Windows. The discussion resulted in the MDNotifyCmd which makes me very happy, a script can now do the job

Re: mod_md 1.1.0 repeating on error

Luca says: executing scripts in response to an event I hope you are aware of the MDNotifyCmd, which is executing a script on the event that a renew is OK. I am not a coder: for me looks it not that difficult to make an Else statement when it is NOT_OK. To notify on error is

Re: mod_md 1.1.0 repeating on error

Hi Steffen, 2017-12-12 19:20 GMT+01:00 Steffen : > > > Your advise is that I stop testing/ helping ? Please answer this question. > If yes, then I have to remove the test mod_md download from Apache Lounge > and cannot give anymore support there to the users I represent.

mod_proxy_uwsgi build errors

Trying to build on Win mod_proxy_uwsgi from trunk. Get the follwoing: mod_proxy_uwsgi.c(139): error C2065: 'uint16_t': undeclared identifier mod_proxy_uwsgi.c(139): error C2146: syntax error: missing ';' before identifier 'pktsize' mod_proxy_uwsgi.c(139): error C2065: 'pktsize': undeclared

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

I was wrong about OtherBill suggesting it be in mod_remoteip... it was actually Daniel: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b79ff329bb6163bb63d1284696360385313a402a6a70604459604e48@%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

Hmmm https://lists.apache.org/list.html?c...@httpd.apache.org:lte=24M:proxyprotocol Note when 1st committed. > On Dec 13, 2017, at 7:19 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Wed, Dec

mod_md 1.1.0 build warnings

Not serious (I think): mod_md.c(285): warning C4003: not enough actual parameters for macro 'APLOGNO' mod_md.c(307): warning C4003: not enough actual parameters for macro 'APLOGNO' mod_md.c(784): warning C4003: not enough actual parameters for macro 'APLOGNO' mod_md.c(827): warning C4003:

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:19 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> On Dec 13, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Jordan Gigov wrote: >> >> On 12 December 2017 at 11:32, Stefan Eissing

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 13 Dec 2017, at 2:22 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >> Or, it is bad form to introduce features and then force some >> config-changes on users after the 'experimental' phase, which >> isn't even

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

On 13 Dec 2017, at 2:22 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Or, it is bad form to introduce features and then force some > config-changes on users after the 'experimental' phase, which > isn't even proposed, in this case. > > We want to be pretty strict about config changes, and

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > Personally, I think it is bad form to hold off on a back port > for a feature that only 1 person really, really "demanded" > and then not do anything to add that functionality in. > > So I say YES, we SHOULD vote on

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Dec 13, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Jordan Gigov wrote: > > On 12 December 2017 at 11:32, Stefan Eissing > wrote: >> >> Fellow Apache developers: if we want to make an X-mas

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

> On Dec 13, 2017, at 12:45 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: >> Fellow Apache developers: if we want to make an X-mas 2.4 release for the >> people on this planet, the backports in

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

> On Dec 13, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Jordan Gigov wrote: > > On 12 December 2017 at 11:32, Stefan Eissing > wrote: > Fellow Apache developers: if we want to make an X-mas 2.4 release for the > people on this

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

I tend to agree that proxy, being a 'lower level' protocol, aught to represent before remoteip presents itself. Overloading the module seemed like a headache. That said, as the author of remoteip, I consider my opinions highly biased and untrusted by me myself, so you all sort that out :) Thanks