On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:33:27PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Colm MacCarthaigh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 02:48:53PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > > Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Linux (2.4.18 and 2.4.19, for me anyway) with
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 07:12:04AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Colm MacCárthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > O.k., now that is interesting, another thing I've noticed is that when
> > the encoding is chunked, I can't replicate the problem. Presumably the
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:25:49PM +, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> My tests (and patch) were based on apr and apr-util from CVS ,
> with the 2.0.43 codebase, because CVS seems broken right now.
stupid pre-test patch, here's the real one:
Index: c
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 08:21:36AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Colm MacCárthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:25:49PM +, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> > > My tests (and patch) were based on apr and apr-util from CVS ,
> > > w
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 02:29:29PM -, David Reid wrote:
> > > In the interest of tying up loose ends, I'm still concerned with your
> > > observation that --disable-sendfile didn't do the right thing... did
> > > you "make distclean" before re-configuring?
> >
> > The problem there was that --
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:05:21PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 08:21:36AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > Colm MacCárthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:25:49PM +, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> > > &
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 07:16:02AM +, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:38:06PM +0000, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:05:21PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
> > > Colm, can you try running the apr/test/sendfile binary with your
> > > ma
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:30:29AM +, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:54:53AM +0000, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> ..
> > telnet [v6addr] 80
> > GET / HTTP/1.1
> > Host: madeup.tld
> >
> >
>
> Have you verified with tcpdump/ethereal etc
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 12:58:48PM +, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> I'm using vanilla 2.4.18, from Debian kernel-source-2.4.18 , one machine
> has the broadcom bcm5700 module, and the the other has the intel
> e1000 module.
O.k., more testing, I've tried it out on another bo
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:17:53PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
> To summarize some off-list dicussion - the kernel guys have said that
> using sendfile on IPv6 sockets may trigger bugs in cards which do
> hardware TCP checksumming for card/driver/OS combinations which support
> that. (since the cards h
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 10:57:32PM +0100, Jochen Kächelin wrote:
> Will perchild work on the next release or are there any other
> workarounds to secure php-scripts (module) such as suEXEC and cgis?
if you *need* mod_php instances that run as seperate users the
easiest solution is to reverse proxy
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:43:18PM +, Thom May wrote:
> * Aaron Bannert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> > The log is generated from the suexec binary, not httpd, right?
> > Then we can't use a directive to control it and it needs to be
> > hardcoded for safety.
>
> The other issue for suexec is m
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 04:36:58PM +1100, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Consider this mod_cgi script:
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl -w
> print "Content-type: text/plain\n\n";
> print no_such_func();
> print "Shouldn't be printed";
>
> httpd.conf:
> ScriptAlias /cgi-bin/ "/home/httpd/2.0/perl/"
>
> The error is cor
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 03:07:36PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> First, congrats with 2.0.44 ;)
>
>
> > *) Introduce the EnableSendfile directive, allowing users of NFS
> > shares to disable sendfile mechanics when they either fail
> > outright or provide intermitantly corrupted data. P
For one reason or another, I need to be able to invalidate cache
entries in some mod_cache caches. There's no "good" standard for this,
WCIP/BEEP went nowhere afaict, but I want to keep things simple. The
way Squid handles this is by implementing a non-standard PURGE HTTP
method, so I've taken the
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> something more like mod_proxy_balancer's full-scale html interface for
>> doing this kind of thing at run-time?
>
> No, totally nut - bot I am much more interested in a deeper, programmatic,
> interface - which I
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Akins, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How we handle purge:
Oh that reminds me, a long time ago, I wrote htcacheadmin - a generic
command line utility for administering mod_disk_cache caches. Which is
how I /used/ to handle this situation. (I've attached the sou
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +/-1
> [ ] Release httpd-2.2.11 as GA
+1 , tested on EC2 with Ubuntu and Redhat :-)
--
Colm
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
> I believe there have been bug reports/requests to allow changing the
> Server header, but no one has complained about Date: before.
Heh, I made it modifiable, and provided a patch iirc , but noone else liked
it :-)
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:45 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wrote:
> I have essentially finished mod_remoteip at this point and am looking
> to find out the interest level of adopting this as a core module into
> trunk (modules/metadata/ appears to be the most appropriate target)?
+1 :-)
RemoteIPTrus
Observers of the commits list may have noticed some small cleanups to
the 1.3.x branch earlier today. There are currently a number of
several years-old backport/patch proposals in there too, including two
marked as release show-stoppers (neither actually stopped the show,
when last we had a release
Based on this thread, I'll going to commit an EOL notice later today
(1.3.x is still CTR) and language nits and so on can be fixed with
patches/commits as appropriate, and if anyone feels strongly they can
revert :-)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Jorge Schrauwen
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at
I don't think there's much interest in merging any of the patches that
are currently in the STATUS, so I'm intending to a roll a 1.3.x
release Friday for testing/voting. With a release next week.
Unfortunately testing 1.3.x is more painful than it used to be, and so
far I haven't managed to get 1.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2010, at 15:31 , Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
>
>>
>> +1 (non-binding) There are still to many questions about the 1.3
>> branch on the support channels IMHO
>
>
>
> One hopes that a formal EOL statement will be the encouragement that most
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> It sounds to me like it may be a bit of a pandora's box making another
> release. Is it not possible to just make a patch available?
It sure is a PITA, but I think it would be more professional to get a
final release out there - if only bec
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> So there's only one source update and the update of the mime.types. Is that
> worth a release?
There's a pending security fix too that will be committed before the roll.
--
Colm
) < sizeof(long). Reported by Adam Zabrocki.
[Colm MacCárthaigh
*) Protect logresolve from mismanaged DNS records that return
blank/null hostnames. [Jim Jagielski]
Notes;
this is intended as the final release of Apache httpd 1.3, which has
reached end of life. Security updates may continue
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
>
>> On Jan 8, 2010, at 4:29 AM, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
>>
>>> There is a 1.3.42 release candidate for testing, and voting, at;
>>>
>>> htt
Thanks, I'll clean those up and re-roll, I guess there's no point
updating the build instructions.
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:>
> It's in the branch, but wasn't shipped with the previous tarball. The file
> is also installed by "make install".
>
> File src/Configuration mis
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Brian Havard wrote:
> Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
>> There is a 1.3.42 release candidate for testing, and voting, at;
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~colm/1.3.42/
>>
>
> I just tried building on a fairly stock Ubuntu Karmic s
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> mod_rewrite incorrectly omits the brackets around literal IPv6
> addresses in redirects. Similar issues have been fixed at other places
> in the code already. In server/core.c there is
> get_server_name_for_url(), a wrapper around ap_get_ser
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> File htdocs/manual/misc/FAQ.html was previously 150KB and now is only 5KB. I
> didn't yet load it from the web server itself, but it seems some generation
> step was missing. The file installed by "make install" has the same problem.
links -src
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> There's one other manual related thing I wasn't thinking enough about before
> writing my last mail: the 1.3.42 manual contains SSI "#include virtual"
> statements, the 1.3.41 version not. I (wildly) guess the script expand.pl is
> usually used
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> are any developers of apache (core, modules) coming to FOSDEM in Brussels?
I'll probably be there on the 7th. Any year I've gone there's usually
been a few httpd people around.
--
Colm
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2010, at 4:29 AM, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
>
>> There is a 1.3.42 release candidate for testing, and voting, at;
>
> What happened to this, besides making Slashdot?
I transited the atlantic twice. I actually w
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:49 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> Sorry I didn't get caught up with mail yesterday; +1 to release
> as alpha; -1 for beta due to missing pcre library [if we will be
> shipping -deps].
+1 here too.
--
Colm
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
> Why don't we do this: roll the same tag with the docs fixes as you indicate
> immediately above; sign, hash and put them up on dev/dist. Then call 72
> hours. We have a quick look to see if smoke emerges and, if not, we can
> release earl
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> 2010/1/27 Colm MacCárthaigh :
>
>> I still can't figure out where the repos for dev/dist or dist/ are
>> hosted. None of the docs seem up to date.
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpd/
> https:
2010/1/27 Colm MacCárthaigh :
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> 2010/1/27 Colm MacCárthaigh :
>>
>>> I still can't figure out where the repos for dev/dist or dist/ are
>>> hosted. None of the docs seem up to date.
>>
>>
Just a reminder; Intention is to release 1.3.42 on Tuesday. If anyone
has strong feelings, make them known :-) Nóirín has kindly translated
the announcement into English;
http://people.apache.org/~noirin/Announcement1.3.txt
2010/1/27 Colm MacCárthaigh :
> 2010/1/27 Colm MacCárthaigh :
>&g
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Mark Watts wrote:
> I often need to configure httpd to Listen on more than one IP an a
> range, and more than one port.
Are these being used with IP-based virtual hosts? It might be easier to create
an option that allows each such vhost to be an implicit Listen ..
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
> I think we have all joked on and off about 3.0 for... well about 8 years now.
At least!
> I think there are exciting things happening in C however.
I love C, but unless we can come up with something radical, it's hard
to see a way out of the
On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 10:55:59AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> This is a message from the person who originally filed PR 7810.
> I am not familiar enough with mod_cgid to verify his patch or
> to get suexec working with worker. -- justin
Just to clarify , the patch below doesnt fix it at a
A few weeks ago I opened Bug 7810, which was suexec not working
with mod_userdir with either mod_cgi or mod_cgid. Anyway, Justin
kindly applied a modified patch of mine to fix mod_cgi .. up
until today I have been simply too busy to look at it .. but
here's a patch that makes mod_cg
The following patch reverts to the previous and documented
bevahiour (exhibited by 1.3). Currently
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 01:03:03AM +0100, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> The following patch reverts to the previous and documented
> bevahiour (exhibited by 1.3). Currently
will run the cgi as the webserver user, and not the suexec
user. Obviously a security hole. "include virtual"
Since there have been some changes to the affected source files
and multiple problems presented themselves in unixd.c, my patches
to make suexec + [ mod_include | mod_userdir | mod_cgid ] work
were getting stale. So I've rediffed them against CVS.
I also had a good look through all of the suexec
A friend wanted to keep a (very big) list of "Allow" directives
in a file and Include them from several directories (needed to put an
ACL in force basically).
But the contexts get warped when you call Include and certain
things are allowed and certain not allowed because they are
always treated
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 06:36:28PM +0100, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> Index: src/main/http_core.c
> ===
> RCS file: /home/cvspublic/apache-1.3/src/main/http_core.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.312
> diff -u -r1.312 http_c
I havnt tracked down a cause yet, but this happens with the 2.0.38
tarball, the 2.0.39 one, and the current HEAD. I'm running Solaris
2.8 on sparc,
colmmacc@prodigy (~) $ uname -a
SunOS prodigy 5.8 Generic_108528-13 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-4
it's a nice and beefy E450. I was running 2.0.36 wit
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 01:32:00AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 09:26:46AM +0100, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> >
> > I havnt tracked down a cause yet, but this happens with the 2.0.38
> > tarball, the 2.0.39 one, and the current HEAD. I'm
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 05:30:52PM -0400, Greg Ames wrote:
> We ought to be able to have our cake and eat it too. It is easy to turn off
> keepalives based on the original "type" passed to ap_die. I think you're saying
> there's now a dependency that r->status matches the original "type" on exit
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:39:22PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Is it possible to use SuexecUserGroup in combination with a vhost
> that isn't served out of the default htdocs dir on a per-vhost level?
> This is a rhetorical question as modules/generators/mod_suexec.c:110
> forbids this.
It'
53 matches
Mail list logo