{ On 3/2/2006 at 9:23:45 am, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In httpd-2.2, the check_user_id and auth_checker hooks are only
invoked
for requests to which both an AuthType and at least one Require
directive apply.
In httpd-2.3, the check_user_id and auth_checker hooks
On 2/18/2006 at 4:59 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 02/18/2006 11:46 PM, David Reid wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
So please revert or fix.
Why are people so quick to ask for reversion these days?
Please note that I said revert *or*
On 2/17/2006 at 6:07:27 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Reid wrote:
Had some problems getting a working auth config to let me spend
time
developing on svn's authz module - when I tried 2.2 the exact same
config worked without a problem first time out of the
On 2/17/2006 at 10:38:17 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:11:22AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
On 2/14/2006 at 3:50 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:42:27PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote
On 2/17/2006 at 11:22:44 am, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 02/17/2006 12:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/aaa/mod_auth.h
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/aaa/mod_auth.h?rev=37
On 2/16/2006 at 6:01:51 pm, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Had some problems getting a working auth config to let me spend time
developing on svn's authz module - when I tried 2.2 the exact same
config worked without a problem first time out of the box.
Houston, I
On 2/14/2006 at 3:50 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:42:27PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
The other problem that I see in the configuration is that the
Location
/authany defines an authtype and authname but no authentication
provider
On 2/10/2006 at 5:58:43 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joshua Slive wrote:
On 1/26/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Joshua:
httpd.conf.in has the new structure
httpd-std.conf (the one I was looking at) didn't ;(
Hmmm... httpd-std.conf doesn't exist
On 2/13/2006 at 8:39:41 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:26:39AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
Yes, we do need to make this change. With the provider based
rearchitecting of authentication in httpd 2.2, this left
authorization
On 2/13/2006 at 8:39:41 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:26:39AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
Yes, we do need to make this change. With the provider based
rearchitecting of authentication in httpd 2.2, this left
authorization
On 2/6/2006 at 8:26:07 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whilst 2.2 is, as advertised, source-compatible with 2.0 auth
modules,
the current implementation requires that any auth configuration using
such modules is changed to add AuthBasicAuthoritative off otherwise
On 1/24/2006 at 3:45:47 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Author: colm
Date: Tue Jan 24 14:45:43 2006
New Revision: 372037
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=372037view=rev
Log:
Backport the NET_TIME elimination fix.
Submitted by: wrowe
Modified:
On 1/26/2006 at 11:02:14 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/24/2006 at 3:45:47 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Author: colm
Date: Tue Jan 24 14:45:43 2006
New Revision: 372037
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=372037view=rev
On 1/21/2006 at 7:02 am, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/20/2006 05:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: bnicholes
[..cut..]
+/* always default to LDAP V3 */
+ldap_set_option(ldc-ldap, LDAP_OPT_PROTOCOL_VERSION, version);
+
On 1/19/2006 at 6:46:25 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On ReliantUnix the following code can't be compiled:
+++
typedef struct {
} authz_owner_config_rec;
+++
Because the structure is empty.
Any problem to apply the following patch:
+++
Index:
On 1/13/2006 at 8:19:39 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I would consider moving this compat code into mod_access_compat or
something of the like so that it would be easy for people to select
whether they want the clean new system or a mix of the new and old
OK, try this on for size. Since Order,Allow,Deny are all hooked at
the access_checker stage, we should be able to add these directives back
in and allow them to function normally. The real problem is 'Satisfy'
because it had its fingers into the middle of
ap_process_request_internal(). So to
On 1/11/2006 at 3:43:36 pm, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/11/2006 11:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jan 11, 2006, at 7:19 AM, Joshua Slive wrote:
[Your merge today prompted me to dig out a response I started but
never finished.]
I am still worried that
On 1/6/2006 at 1:15:33 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[Looks like this didn't go through the first time. Do we still have
active moderation on this list?]
-- Forwarded message --
From: Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Revision: 360207
URL:
The Authz refactoring in /branch/authz-dev is basically done and I am
about ready to merge the branch back into trunk. Before I do that, I
would like to describe the impact that the Authz change will have going
forward, as well as the benefits. All of this looks like a massive
change to
On 1/6/2006 at 5:45 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 1/6/06, Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Authz refactoring in /branch/authz-dev is basically done and
I am
about ready to merge the branch back into trunk. Before I do that,
I
would like
On 12/22/2005 at 2:18 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Brian Candler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 01:16:53PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
Directory /www/mydocs
Authname ...
AuthBasicProvider ...
...
Require user John
RequireAll
Require Group
You're not really serious about this are you? It is a little
premature to rename something to 'd' that is still very much 'httpd'.
Get the code in place first and then see if it makes sense to worry
about trivial things like renaming the binary.
Brad
On 12/14/2005 at 1:21:20 pm, in message
{
On 12/15/2005 at 2:17:45 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--On December 15, 2005 8:39:01 AM -0700 Brad Nicholes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're not really serious about this are you? It is a little
You must have missed Paul's lightning talk at AC
On 12/6/2005 at 12:04:47 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 02:17:09PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
Ignoring SATISFY whatever for now, we still want each provider to
be
called in the listed order and whether authorization is GRANTED or
DENIED
On 12/3/2005 at 5:07 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Configuration .. make it configurable. by that I mean allowing people
to
use LDAP or a DB to hold the configuration files, and not a flat
file.
This is mainly intended for large server farms. Currently the
{
On 12/5/2005 at 12:37:33 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Still need AUTHZ_DECLINED for now, The converted mod_authz_user is
referencing it
I think those references should be switched to AUTHZ_DENIED.
AUTHZ_DECLINED has no purpose in a provider scheme, IMHO.
As I mentioned in my last commit, it still needs some clean up.
Please, Please feel free to jump in and clean it up wherever you see the
need. I don't have all of the answers to why things were done the way
they were before and if we still need to do it that way now or is there
a better way.
I didn't expect the NetWare fixes to go in until 2.2.1. Thanks for
including them.
+1 GA (NetWare)
Brad
On 11/29/2005 at 1:32:32 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
*
On 11/28/2005 at 4:51:21 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So one either needs a shared 'fan out' on AAA level for the various
authType(s) - or alternatively to completely kill AuthType and let
each of
the AAA modules provide something like AuthBasic on/off,
On 11/28/2005 at 8:49:00 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 08:33:14AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
other AuthXXXProvider that may come along in the future. Does
anybody
see a need to keep AuthType around at all under the new
authentication
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Isn't it kind of weird and very premature to change the name of a
module
in 2.2, when the rewrite will not occur until 2.4?
Letting 2.2 go out with the name mod_authz_host, would effectively be
flipping the name from the
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On November 25, 2005 1:08:12 PM + Max Bowsher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Once again, I'm against renaming this module. If we do the authz
rewrite we
have discussed on the list recently (the last time this rename was
brought
up), it really *will* be mod_authz_host and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 10:56:23AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
Speaking of authz rewrite, currently the directives 'authtype',
'authname' and 'require' are all implemented in the core module.
This
just doesn't seem like the right place for them so I am considering
+1 for beta status on NetWare. This will probably also be a +1 for GA
as well as long as nothing significant turns up over the next several
days of testing.
Brad
On 11/19/2005 at 6:17:42 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tarballs available from:
On 11/21/2005 at 9:51:31 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/21/05, Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 for beta status on NetWare. This will probably also be a +1 for
GA
as well as long as nothing significant turns up over the next
several
days
On 11/18/2005 at 12:39:44 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roy's raised the recent issue that all ASF releases under his domain
(httpd project chair) should be reviewed -by at least three pmc
members-
as well as the contributors and committers.
This raises an
and posting the binaries
and heard about it from some of our users on the Novell devnet forums.
Brad
On 11/18/2005 at 3:39:18 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad Nicholes wrote:
IMO, binary releases are simply repackaging of the source code
On 11/16/2005 at 9:40 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 04:11:27PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
One other thing, the authorization type (valid-user, user, group,
etc.) should be unique among all of the authorization modules. In
other
words
One other thing, the authorization type (valid-user, user, group,
etc.) should be unique among all of the authorization modules. In other
words, only one authz module should be implementing valid-user not every
module like in the 2.0 architecture. This is the main reason why you
now see the
I can tell that my session on New Modular Authentication Architecture
in Apache 2.2 should be a real hit
(http://apachecon.com/2005/US/html/sessions.html/e=MjAwNS9VUw#1479)
at ApacheCon. :) My entire presentation talks about how it all fits
together and how to move from 2.0 to 2.2.
/me
On 11/9/2005 at 8:25:13 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o We have 84 NWGNU* makefiles in the tree, which I find quite
wasteful. Why aren't they generated by a Netware script?
At the very least, they should have a comment on the top
that
I don't anticipate the NetWare code ever being built with GCC, but who
knows what could happen. It's mainly an NLM linker issue. I am fine
with converting // commenting to standard C comment style. At the very
least, we maintain style consistency.
Brad
On 11/10/2005 at 10:32:10 am, in
On 11/9/2005 at 10:28:38 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But, I'll admit that mod_access_host isn't entirely bad. However,
it'd be
really nice to re-do the second half of our auth system, but I worry
that
Sander's completely forgotten about his promises to do
On 11/3/2005 at 10:38 pm, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As if the old system wasn't hard enough to wrap one's head around.
Just when
I had it figured out enough to go and write mod_auth_userdir you guys
go and
change things on me.
BTW, when did this change? I've
But it does handle access control which kind of puts in the category
of authz vs. anywhere else.
Brad
On 11/3/2005 at 9:26:57 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there really a rationale for that name change?
This module is *not* an authz module in the sense of
+1 NetWare
Brad
On 10/29/2005 at 10:09:46 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.1.9-Beta is available from:
http://people.apache.org/~pquerna/dev/httpd-2.1.9/
Please test and vote on releasing 2.1.9 as BETA.
As a reminder, if you know of any issues you consider a
Need to set AuthAuthoritative OFF so that mod_auth allows the
authorization to continue. The default is ON.
Brad
On 11/1/2005 at 3:09:23 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I ran into an authentication problem in Apache 2.0.55. I'm trying
to
use the require
Explain this a little further because I am a little confused. What
do you intend to happen when a directive like:
require group ldap:foo dbm:bar bash
is issued? The problem here is the confusion as to which module is
handling 'group'. In order for this to work, every authorization type
This would be OK except that there is a bigger problem that I looked
into trying to fix at one point but never completed it. The problem is
the duplication of authorization types. Currently we have both
mod_authz_groupfile and mod_authz_dbm implementing the types group and
file-group. This
+1 NetWare
Brad
On 10/13/2005 at 6:34:52 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Look for the Apache HTTP Server 1.3.34 prerelease tarballs in:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please test :)
done.
Thanks,
Brad
On 10/15/2005 at 4:36 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings All,
The attached bits build the mod_authn_dbd.c module for NetWare.
Norm
+1 NetWare
Brad
On 10/9/2005 at 10:42:43 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The httpd-2.0.55 candidate, including win32 source .zip and
installers*,
is now available for testing at
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please review this candidate, and when
NetWare has one issue that will require apr-1.2.2. The problem is in
filepath.c while validating that the path is not above root (trunk rev.
240085). At this point it is only affecting one of the SSI commands and
I don't consider it a showstopper for 2.1.8-beta. But moving to
apr-1.2.2 would
On 9/22/2005 at 9:20 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have one, FYI... http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/httpd/
currently empty as there are no modules or subprojects in incubation
at this moment.
Bill
But what you are suggesting is exactly what has
This patch is sitting in the STATUS file waiting for one more vote.
It sure would be nice to get it into the 2.0.55 release. Anyone willing
to give it a quick review?
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/19/2005
Hello,
attached is backported patch from 2.1-BETA7 which fixes invalid
handling
of NULL
On Tuesday, September 20, 2005 at 9:58:16 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
What is the real issue with having an experimental module subdir?
If it makes it easier for people to use it or try it out, then
why not?
Because --with-foo /
On Wednesday, September 21, 2005 at 9:19 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly my point. This is what sandboxes are for. Not production. You
argue that this produces good results. So let's take one bug...
ASF Bugzilla Bug 16696 Errore Windows Xp with
Done.
Brad
On Wednesday, September 21, 2005 at 11:26 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm thinking that 0.9.7 should be rolled, and that 2.0.55 should be
based on that new tag. Lots of minor bug fixes that we aught to
gather together for the new release.
Which
OK so here you go (funny, I guess I now consider myself an old-timer).
I am +1 for including experimental modules in the stable releases
mainly because of my experience with auth_ldap and mod_ldap which I
consider to be very successful. Back in 2001 the dev list, for some odd
reason (and you
I would like to see mod_charset_lite included as a standard module.
I am not sure why it is classified as experimental other than maybe it
isn't needed or used on most platforms. The NetWare platform needs to
use it to help deal with file system character set conversions when
doing file
On Sunday, September 18, 2005 at 5:42:23 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 18 September 2005 22:24, Paul Querna wrote:
dbd has another classification problem: there's no slot for it in
/modules/
!
I wonder if we need a new directory. Something like
I think we all agree that all of the backporting and sync'ing sucks
but I don't see any other way of doing this. At some point 2.2 has to
branch, stabilize and finally release. In a perfect world releasing 2.2
would happen immediately after branching it so that no backporting or
sync'ing
On Wednesday, September 07, 2005 at 5:47:10 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The requirement I'm trying to fulfill is multiple group requires
within ldap.
I figured making it generic within ldap using satisfy would be a good
idea,
though this seems to be
+1 in concept as well but it seems that this should be implemented at
some lower level so that we don't have to touch each authz module to
teach them how to deal with the satisfy directive.
The problem is that the auth_checker hook is defined as
AP_IMPLEMENT_HOOK_RUN_FIRST meaning that each
On Wednesday, September 07, 2005 at 2:37:00 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought that, in part, satisfy all is in the main request handling
logic that's burried in the core (where we do the uri translation,
loc
walk, map_to_storage walks, again a loc walk and
Are there any comments on this? If not then I would like to make the type
name changes in trunk and then push them back into the 2.2 branch. I don't
consider this a show-stopper for the 2.1.7-beta candidate but the conflict does
need to be resolved before 2.2 is released.
Brad
On
I am looking for comments from those who helped to implement the
refactored authentication model and those who helped restructure the
authentication modules.
One of the problems that I discovered while working on the
restructuring of the authnz_ldap module was the name space for the
+1 NetWare
Brad
On Saturday, August 20, 2005 at 1:27:00 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bundled with APR APR-Util 1.2.1:
http://people.apache.org/~pquerna/dev/httpd-2.1.7/
Please test and vote on releasing 2.1.7 as beta.
Thanks,
-Paul
done.
Brad
On Saturday, August 13, 2005 at 4:19 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings All,
Some kind soul needs to update the NetWare build files for AP2.1
proxy
modules, to include the recently added
'proxy_hook_load_lbmethods()'.
Presently getting the
On Tuesday, August 09, 2005 at 8:40 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there could be some mileage in a hybrid policy, with
lazy consensus on simple bugfixes and RTC on any new functionality
or substantial changes. There's a problem of definition in there,
On Tuesday, August 09, 2005 at 10:05 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current blocking issue in APR APR-Util is that we can *only*
release apr and apr-util of the exact same version number, due to
problems in the Netware build system. This means to release APR
On Tuesday, August 09, 2005 at 10:16 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or just release as-is, if nobody is going to fix the Netware build
then
Netware won't work, big deal. All three Netware users can write in
and
ask for their money back :)
joe
Oh come on,
On Tuesday, August 09, 2005 at 10:47 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to place a cause on why 2.2 hasn't been released, I feel
that
there is only one real reason. I gave up on trying to do 2.1/2.2
releases
because I got fed up with having every
On Monday, August 08, 2005 at 3:23 pm, in message
Yep, I'm +1 on RTC for both cache and ldap/.
Bill
Did you mean CTR?
Brad
+1 Deja vu, this thread sounds a lot like a discussion we had
during/post-ApacheCon 2004. I would still like to see the patches come through
trunk first just to make sure we don't miss something going forward. In the
case of auth_ldap and util_ldap, the 2.0 code base was never officially
This is why I would like to see the release of 2.2 as soon as
possible. My only explanation is that I missed changing the NULL
parameter to ldc-ldap when I did the backport of the conversion from
global to per-connection from trunk (rev. 170805). Since the code bases
for util_ldap are
If I recall correctly, it looks like
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34209 . The problem
is that on some systems the default shared memory setting is not
sufficient which ends up causing corruption.
Brad
On Thursday, July 14, 2005 at 2:43:32 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Does
+1 on the patch in general. It seems to work for NetWare. However, since we
only build mod_ssl for 2.1/2.2 and only target openssl 0.9.8, I can't really
comment on the 2.0 backport other than I expect it to work there as well.
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, July 08, 2005 9:00:00 AM
On Fri,
+1 netware
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, July 08, 2005 9:52:02 AM
Author: wrowe
Date: Fri Jul 8 08:52:02 2005
New Revision: 209823
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=209823view=rev
Log:
No UCHAR, per Joe
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ssl_scache_dbm.c
Modified:
I think that there are a few more changes that need to be made. At least on
NetWare it won't compile without the following additional patch.
Brad
Index: ssl_scache_shmcb.c
===
--- ssl_scache_shmcb.c (revision 201624)
+++
:44 PM 7/6/2005, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 12:10 PM 7/6/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote:
-sess = d2i_SSL_SESSION(NULL, ucpData, nData);
+sess = d2i_SSL_SESSION(NULL, (const UCHAR**)ucpData, nData);
UCHAR? Sure that isn't a Netware-ism?
My bad, I'm seeing it.
Otherwise, +1
Compiling 2.1-dev on NetWare using OpenSSL 0.9.8-beta4
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, July 06, 2005 2:39:18 PM
At 03:04 PM 7/6/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote:
I'm running into the same const problem here as well on the calls to
d2i_X509() and d2i_PrivateKey(). Add these to your patch reworking
+1 NetWare
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, June 24, 2005 2:03:57 AM
Please vote on releasing 2.1.6 as -alpha.
Available at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
http://people.apache.org/~pquerna/dev/httpd-2.1.6/
MD5 (httpd-2.1.6-alpha.tar.gz) = 4602f254693e64293bdf36c8d066c66b
MD5
Not sure what is causing he protocol not to be set either, but I hit the same
thing when testing mod_ssl on NetWare.
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, June 20, 2005 1:12:23 AM
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Also, possibly across platforms is a fault in ssl_engine_init,
where the host-protocol
+1 netware
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, June 17, 2005 1:40:50 AM
Please test and vote on releasing 2.1.5 as -alpha.
Available at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
(might take up to 2 hours for the files to appear, due to the rsync delay)
MD5 (httpd-2.1.5-alpha.tar.Z) =
I have run into this one also and I still don't understand why the make is
all of the sudden asking for yacc when this all worked before. Since neither
mod_ssl nor BSD sockets are part of the standard NetWare build, this isn't a
show stopper. But I would like to understand what happened
It done and checked into 2.2. I posted several messages to this mailing list
last week and this week. There is a new module called mod_auth_alias that
allows you to create alias providers giving you the ability to to create
alternate providers to different ldap servers that will be called
\tools\cygwin
Set MULTIPROC=1
Set WS295SDK=c:\novell\ws295sdk = found winsock2.h in here;
Regards,
Norm
Brad Nicholes wrote:
The documentation has just been updated. Apache 1.3 for NetWare is a CLib
application rather than LibC. It was incorrectly referencing the wrong SDK.
You should
Here is an attempt at providing this functionality through a separate module
called mod_authn_alias. It follows the syntax outlined in the previous message
thread http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-httpd-devm=110995646219340w=2
. However, I have run into a road block. In order to
The documentation has just been updated. Apache 1.3 for NetWare is a CLib
application rather than LibC. It was incorrectly referencing the wrong SDK.
You should be downloading and using the CLib SDK from
http://developer.novell.com/ndk/clib.htm As far as SED goes, I don't know why
the
Sorry, wasn't thinking about apr-util 1.1.x compatibility. Which would you
rather see happen, revert or branch without this change? How soon are we going
to see apr-util 1.2? Without this directive, certificate verification is at
the mercy of the global ldap setting.
Brad
[EMAIL
Is there an issue with backporting this change to 1.1.x branch and releasing a
apr-util 1.1.3?
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:28:19 PM
At 05:52 PM 5/11/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
I believe we should uphold the policy of using only released versions of
a dependency.
+1,
So I guess I am confused. Are you saying that we *can* release 1.2 or am I
stuck with putting LDAP SDK #ifdef code back in util_ldap in order to fix this
problem?
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:56 PM
Brad Nicholes wrote:
Is there an issue with backporting this change
+1
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, April 29, 2005 4:45:19 PM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think that most other developers agree that 2.1.x/trunk has enough
features for a 2.2.x GA branch.
I believe 2.1.x is a moving target.
I think it is hard to stabilize a moving target.
I just checked in a patch to move the ldap_set_option() call from trying to
set the connection timeout globally to ldap connection specific. I don't have
a good way to test that it fixes the problem, but if somebody can verify the
fix, I will propose it for backport.
Brad
[EMAIL
Guenter,
I just pulled and built the 2.0.54 tarball again and I am not seeing any
problems. mod_extfilter is building without any errors or warnings. I think
that Sander can go ahead with the release and if something unexpected pops up
in the NetWare build, we will post a patch.
Brad
As Bill said, nothing has changed with the way apr/apr-util library source
interacts with the httpd build. Both CVS and SVN required you to checkout APR
and APR-UTIL separately from HTTPD. The only difference between 2.0-dev and
2.1-trunk is that we made a change in the NetWare make files
True, in fact I still don't think it is complete even in trunk. Taking another
look.
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunday, April 10, 2005 1:47:58 AM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: bnicholes
Date: Fri Apr 8 16:03:45 2005
New Revision: 160636
URL:
PROTECTED] Monday, April 11, 2005 1:35:26 PM
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 03:47:03PM -, Brad Nicholes wrote:
Author: bnicholes
Date: Mon Apr 11 08:47:03 2005
New Revision: 160909
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=160909
Log:
Fix a const/non-const conversion error when building
101 - 200 of 476 matches
Mail list logo
