ar as I am concerned.
Best regards,
Michael
On Feb 8, 2018 4:19 PM, "Michael Felt" <aixto...@felt.demon.nl
<mailto:aixto...@felt.demon.nl>> wrote:
On 07-Feb-18 19:40, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
Is the sapi compiled against libtool etc. from httpd? Or is it
On 07-Feb-18 19:40, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
Is the sapi compiled against libtool etc. from httpd? Or is it using the
configure logic shipped with the php package?
The sapi is compiled using php configure, etc. The install part uses
instdso.sh and apxs, instdso.sh, iirc calls the libtool
Travelling, so not able to investigate deeply, but these are the error
messages I see:
/opt/build-1/libtool --silent --mode=compile xlc_r
-qHALT=E -U__STR__ -D_THREAD_SAFE -D_USE_IRS
-D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -I.
-I/data/prj/apache/httpd/httpd-2.4.29/include
On 8/21/2016 12:12 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
I fear it is related to my different 'packaging', manually putting the
shared library into the .a archive (which is static only by default).
Going to try both ways (static and rtld linking to the library).
That seems to have fixed it. As I suspected
On 8/19/2016 3:03 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Michael Felt <mamf...@gmail.com> wrote:
root@x064:[/data/prj/apache/httpd-2.4.23]nm /opt/modules/mod_authn_file.so |
grep apr_password_validate
Are you sure that the libapr you're scrutinizing is being
On 8/19/2016 3:03 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Michael Felt <mamf...@gmail.com> wrote:
root@x064:[/data/prj/apache/httpd-2.4.23]nm /opt/modules/mod_authn_file.so |
grep apr_password_validate
Are you sure that the libapr you're scrutinizing is being
a) I expect I have "enabled" a new httpd flag as I attempt to build a
comprehensive 64-bit version of httpd for AIX - so I expect this is a
"user error". I am hoping for feedback on where to look (short path is
to not load mod_authn_file, for now). I shall try same build as 32-bit
and see if
ything else?
> >
> >> Am 16.09.2015 um 18:42 schrieb Michael Felt <mamf...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> well, correction on building nghttp. Seems it only expects to work in a
> GNU rte and I do not have the time to verify an environment that will
> support "POS
Hello all,
I have been ignoring building httpd-2.5.x and thought it was about time to
start taking notice. And I see a bunch of new messages - one of which may
be a drift in time between my AIX server and the NFS server I keep all the
files on.
But the first WARNING I saw was from nghttp2 -
const char*,const
char*)" is not allowed.
"util_expr_eval.c", line 1815.7: 1506-196 (W) Initialization between types
"const void* const" and "int(*)(struct {...}*,const void*,const char*,const
char*)" is not allowed.
make[2]: warning: Clock skew detected. Your
a standard compiler might work - if I understand
correctly that there is a break with standard C starting with gcc 4.8)
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Michael Felt <mamf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> well, just built it again, with --enable-maintainer-mode added, so now
> have:
>
&
Over the years (2007 being the first time for me) there have been at
least three bugs reported re: instdso.sh - two on PHP - which they
closed as not a PHP bug, and one on the apache bug list.
1. https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=27795
2. https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=43032
3.
I have built, and tested httpd-2.2.31 - and while 2.4.16 has no
errors, 2.2.31 reports some errors.
I have tried to understand the error_log, but I am not making any sense
of the output.
This is using OpenSSL. Same errors, and basically same error_log output
regardless of linked against
I have been installing Bundle::ApacheTest on AIX 5.3, with perl-5.8.2 and
the tests seem to be working normally for me.
There have been some // comment errors pop-up in a few mods, and a define
that AIX does not like with a few mods. But other than those typos the only
problem I have had is with
On 2015-07-18 6:12 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
This was addressed for 2.2.31 and 2.4.16... See the significantly revised
default docs/conf/extra/httpd-ssl.conf.in template for our recommended
config.
I am behind the times obviously here.
I have some regular work to do, but I shall try
On 2015-07-18 3:44 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Michael Feltmamf...@gmail.com wrote:
* Should the server determine that for a specific Location/Directory
more strict levels
are needed then a new handshake (renegotiate if you prefer) for a stricter
cipher should
On 2015-07-17 4:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Yann Ylavicylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Attached are the logs from both httpd and s_client, where we can see
that httpd somehow expects a client certificate during the
renegotiation (without sending any
A) OpenSSL and LibreSSL behave differently. Not surprising, because
LibreSSL got it's start because OpenBSD was (my words) - fed up - with
the upkeep of OpenSSL. And there are several presentations of the first
30 days of LibreSSL where the focus was on cutting out anything they
felt was
On 2015-07-17 1:20 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
On 2015-07-17 12:39 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
tcpdump -i lo -w dump.pcap -s0 tcp port 8532
Run at a different time, but with trace5 enabled.
logs.pr12355.libressl.trace5.tar.bz2
Description: Binary data
On 2015-07-09 1:46 PM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
I need some help with establishing a test baseline. I checked out the test
framework from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/test/framework/trunk,
followed the README and ran the tests against a freshly installed 2.4.x in
/opt/httpd/2.4-plain.
On 2015-06-13 12:26 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
Am 13.06.2015 um 12:23 schrieb Rainer Jung:
Hi Michael,
Am 13.06.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Michael Felt:
Just a link to the Howto setup Apache::Test would be sufficient. The
README in the project sends me to mod_perl info, not a list of perl
mods
On 2015-07-17 4:18 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Michael Feltmamf...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2015-07-17 1:20 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
On 2015-07-17 12:39 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
tcpdump -i lo -w dump.pcap -s0 tcp port 8532
Run at a different time, but with trace5
On 2015-07-17 12:39 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
But possibly LogLevel trace5 in httpd.conf (or
t/conf/ssl/ssl.conf.in 's VirtualHost) would be enough to see what's
going on. Since the error (interruption) seems to be on the client
side though, it may also be interesting to start httpd with a
On 2015-07-17 4:18 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Thanks, I finally managed to build libressl on my system and
httpd-2.4.x linked to it.
However since this isn't the system's native libssl, the perl
framework (libwww-perl/5.836 here) does not use it (but Debian's
libssl-0.9.8o-4squeeze20), so I had to
On 2015-07-16 11:48 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Michael Feltmamf...@gmail.com wrote:
A longish read - basically while 2.4.12 had few errors when built against
OpenSSL 0.9.8 LibreSSL has quite a few errors - perhaps because it has
removed many unsafe crypto
On 2015-07-17 5:34 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Michael Feltmamf...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2015-07-17 4:18 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
$ /path/to/libressl/2.2.1/bin/openssl s_client -connect localhost:8532 -state
What else did you change in your configuration files - to
On 2015-07-17 5:34 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Michael Feltmamf...@gmail.com wrote:
Here I can see: VirtualHost _default_:8532
Much more simple: 8352 != 8532 - i.e., typo
On 2015-07-17 12:39 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Michael Felt wrote:
Yann Ylavic wrote:
So if RC4 was the culprit, the tests (pr12355 and pr43738) should pass
now.
I'll pull ApacheTest and check.
I assume the attached logs_pr12355_LibreSSL.zip was with the latest
framework (including r1691419), so
On 2015-07-17 12:39 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Michael Felt wrote:
Yann Ylavic wrote:
So if RC4 was the culprit, the tests (pr12355 and pr43738) should pass
now.
I'll pull ApacheTest and check.
p.s. I have built 2.4.16 now - and did not have to change anything for
it to build against LibreSSL
On 2015-07-17 12:39 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
tcpdump -i lo -w dump.pcap -s0 tcp port 8532
dump.pcap
Description: Binary data
First little thing I ran into - that I did not have with 2.4.12 is this:
root@x065:[/data/prj/apache/httpd/test]/opt/httpd/sbin/apachectl start
AH00534: httpd: Configuration error: More than one MPM loaded.
Granted, I should perhaps change to pre-fork (I noticed some had only
tested that) - but
cusr
74.02 csys = 166.78 CPU)
Result: PASS
[warning] server loopback:8529 shutdown
[warning] port 8529 still in use...
..done
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Am 16.07.2015 um 15:03 schrieb Michael Felt:
First little thing I ran into - that I did
Also, the home page still says 2.4.12 and 2.2.29 - but the Download page is
up to date...
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Oops. Sorry.
On Jul 15, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Bostjan Skufca bost...@a2o.si wrote:
Hi all,
since 2.4.10 and 2.2.29 the
I am a bit behind - yet looking forward.
I wish to recall a pleasant get together last April in Texas just before
ApacheCon. At that time I mentioned LibreSSL and building httpd against it
(actually mod_ssl is all it amounts to).
The build itself was quite simple - I shall repeat that now for
Should have thought of that earlier :p @ me.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
refresh your browser cache. :)
On Jul 16, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, the home page still says 2.4.12 and 2.2.29 - but the Download page
libexec/mod_heartbeat.so
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 4:03 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Jul 16, 2015 8:04 AM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
First little thing I ran into - that I did not have with 2.4.12 is this:
root@x065:[/data/prj/apache/httpd/test]/opt/httpd/sbin
, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com
wrote:
My comment is that with 2.4.12 the same configure did not do this.
This is
new behavior.
Probably a consequence of [1] which may not play very well with
--enable-load-all-modules.
[1] http://svn.apache.org/r1661848
I really should have titled this differently - sigh!
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
I am a bit behind - yet looking forward.
I wish to recall a pleasant get together last April in Texas just before
ApacheCon. At that time I mentioned LibreSSL
Moving this to a thread with a better title!
A longish read - basically while 2.4.12 had few errors when built
against OpenSSL 0.9.8 LibreSSL has quite a few errors - perhaps because
it has removed many unsafe crypto combinations. The root question is:
is this LibreSSL misbehaving, or are the
I'll look at it and hopefully understand something. but tomorrow.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 7:56 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
Here I have the output of just one test t/ssl/pr12355.t - and note
, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
My apologies for asking - but I am sure there are extra perl mods that
need to be installed before Apache-Test will operate as expected.
Unfortunately, it does not seem to demand them, and I have forgotten the
extra mods I loaded to get
My apologies for asking - but I am sure there are extra perl mods that need
to be installed before Apache-Test will operate as expected.
Unfortunately, it does not seem to demand them, and I have forgotten the
extra mods I loaded to get 100's of tests compared to the 13 I am getting
now.
I had
Along the lines of to be continued - IMHO httpd should be one of the
early adopters of not allowing linkage to versions of openssl that cannot
support TLS1.2.
I have built (on AIX) against libreSSL (v2.1.6) with some private additions
for AIX (that will be verified and improved upon by openbsd in
From my perspective - as a simple packager (re: openssl - old versions) I
run into the problem of only being able to get to 0.9.8.k (AIX 5.3 TL12).
With AIX 6.1 and 7.1 it would be openssl-1.0.0(something - do not know by
memory what patchlevel IBM openssl.base is at). Personally, I am going to
than a limiting factor. (Oh how I love my
pink glasses :) )
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:29 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
FWIW...
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
From my perspective - as a simple packager (re: openssl - old versions) I
run
from the last command is 1.
Note: if I leave out the --enable-ssl --with-ssl=/opt the package builds as
expected.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
I am experimenting with libressl - and just thought I would mention an
error message I am getting with regard
are about the experimental
nature of a module in one release vs another, or legal complications, e.g.
SSL.
Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
I remember that there are differences, by design.
I guess I should not do these tests after midnight - as I just saw that I
had commented out
, because only 1.4.X is required.
Regards
Rüdiger
*From:* Michael Felt [mailto:mamf...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Sonntag, 24. August 2014 19:26
*To:* dev@httpd.apache.org
*Subject:* HTTPD-2.2.x and buildconf messages
In the past I have used buildconf messages as a reminder for where I
-clan.net
wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 10:55:17 +0200
Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
*Please excuse my laziness* - because I am sure there is a way to get
all modules activated in both 2.2.X and 2.4.X - only that they are
slightly different - and I am sure you have documented it somewhere
In the past I have used buildconf messages as a reminder for where I should
be looking for apr and apr-util
Since I read in the VOTE thread a bit about the apr version being updated,
I would like to mention that buildconf still talks about 1.4.X versions.
package builds fine using the build/aix scripts, except these ignore, if
possible, the srcapr that was included in the tarball.
Question: is the .gdbinit in tarball root part of the distro now?
Apeche::Test returned these errors
Test Summary Report
---
t/apache/server_name_port.t
, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
package builds fine using the build/aix scripts, except these ignore, if
possible, the srcapr that was included in the tarball.
Question: is the .gdbinit in tarball root part of the distro now?
Apeche::Test returned these errors
:
Michael, can you please compare 2.2.27 to 2.2.29? 2.2 in testing doesn't
resemble 2.4. That said, we are simply concerned about any potential
regressions in the legacy branch.
Thanks for the feedback!
Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
built on a second server, but at AIX 5.3 TL12 (5300-12
15/109 test programs. 127/3337 subtests failed.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I will compare with the 2.2.27 branch for regressions.
I just completed a comparison of 2.2.x and 2.4.x.
Maybe you can help me with the correct configure settings
)
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, there are more files involved - if you read the CHANGES you
might understand. So, here is a tar file with everything.
As a zip file, because my mailer refuses the .tar file
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Michael
*Please excuse my laziness* - because I am sure there is a way to get all
modules activated in both 2.2.X and 2.4.X - only that they are slightly
different - and I am sure you have documented it somewhere (and even
mentioned it (that there are differences such as ...) in passing in
previous
.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
So, back to testing again - on the same system where 2.4.10-distro passed
all tests it ran, 2.2.28-dev has a few errors reporting - and I need to
figure out why mod_proxy is not being built (or maybe it is only
/modules/proxy/reverse
total 32
drwxrwxr-x6 michael felt 4096 Aug 06 12:40 .svn
drwxrwxr-x3 michael felt 4096 Feb 19 2013 notproxy
root@x099:[/data/prj/apache/httpd/test]find . -name
cgi
./t/htdocs/modules/cgi
Suggestions?
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Michael Felt
: 9
Files=3, Tests=17, 13 wallclock secs ( 0.08 usr 0.02 sys + 4.31 cusr
1.88 csys = 6.29 CPU)
Result: FAIL
Failed 3/3 test programs. 4/17 subtests failed.
Thank you for your attention!
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
update:
I think the CVE test
Done for now
root@x099:[/data/prj/apache/httpd/httpd-2.2.x]cat build/aix/CHANGES
2014-08-07:
%% buildaix.ksh
* store installp result in ./installp/ppc directory rather than ./build/aix
* default user/group is httpd/httpd rather than daemon/daemon
* add argument to configure
I already have a login. I have a problem with writing in wiki's - never
satisfied with how I put it there, but I shall add/update the info I know.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote
in build/aix. If that is
a sin of some sort, please just append to build/aix/README.aix I will see
what it becomes when trunk is updated.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
I already have a login. I have a problem with writing in wiki's - never
satisfied
as a
minimum. So without that there are probably several perl modules that are
not sufficient for the tests to be processed correctly)
For now I am just going to be happy with: All tests successful. ... Result:
PASS
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway
73 73 100.00% 1-73
t/ssl/verify.t 31 33.33% 2
17 tests and 40 subtests skipped.
Failed 17/109 test scripts, 84.40% okay. 352/4661 subtests failed, 92.45%
okay.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I
::Response-parse($response_data);
if (! defined $response) {
die HTTP::Response-parse failed;
}
This does not look like line 1 either. Neither does it look like line 18
(whatever eval 18 means).
Lastly, why is it counting double?
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Michael Felt mamf
libssl.a
libssl.so.0.9.8
2libcrypto.a
libcrypto.so.0.9.8
3libc.a
shr.o
4
..
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks. So, when the t/TEST has a line with NOK
A couple of time I have gotten started with using test from Apache.
Just to be clear about how I am starting I use svn to get the latest
sources and have test and test/ApacheTest from
./svn/bin/jsvn checkout
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/test/framework/trunk
/data/prj/apache/httpd/test
if sshd still works
as well as fewer t/TEST errors.)
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of time I have gotten started with using test from Apache.
Just to be clear about how I am
at 12:35 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
btw: I ran (as best I could) ApacheTest against 2.4.10. On the one hand,
all
tests it did passed, but it skipped several, which surprises me somewhat
-
because I thought I had all mods enabled in the build.
The test suite only tests modules
All was looking normal (I will make a small patch for the buildaix.ksh
script to increase the value for MAXMEM) - however, at the end there is an
error (when installing to a DESTDIR).
build ends with:
find: bad status--
/var/tmp/root/httpd.2.4.10/opt/httpd/libexec/mod_mpm_worker.so
install: File
== version 1.5.1, and apr-util is version 1.5.3
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
All was looking normal (I will make a small patch for the buildaix.ksh
script to increase the value for MAXMEM) - however, at the end there is an
error (when installing
/.libs/mod_mpm_worker.so
1373015511 -rw-r--r-- 1 root system 988 Aug 1 09:07
./server/mpm/worker/.libs/mod_mpm_worker.lai
Will try modifying the symbolic link to the real file, and see how it
works, or does not.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote
correction: I did not pay attention to the .. in the symbolic name. It does
reference the file correctly.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
ran same command again, but rather that sh -x, used option --debug
This is what I get from func_mode_install - where
PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
correction: I did not pay attention to the .. in the symbolic name. It
does reference the file correctly.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
ran same command again, but rather that sh -x, used option --debug
[warning] port 8529 still in use...
..done
Where should I be looking to correct this?
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
the good news: user error. I had removed coreutils so I was relying on
the default /usr/bin/install program. Once replaced with coreutils
instructions and that it would be better to correct errors
earlier in the build/install process.
On Jun 22, 2014 6:58 AM, Victor J. Orlikowski
victor.j.orlikow...@alumni.duke.edu wrote:
On Jun 20, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is the patch - as text, and a file
/libexec/liblibphp5.so
+ exit 0
Will submit a diff -u output later - need to reinstall the original - sigh,
forgot to copy before editing.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
I see I did not read far enough - as you found the reference to slibclean.
In it's
/lib$TARGET_NAME
-exit 0
+exit $status
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Victor J. Orlikowski
victor.j.orlikow...@alumni.duke.edu wrote:
On Jun 20, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
At least, I am assuming this to be the problem - because I am assuming the
expectation
Well, my patch is at the end, leaving the rm in place. However, I could
examine looking at using slibclean (shared library clean) - which is the
program to remove outstanding (loaded, but not active) shared library code.
And - thinking through - if the remove is not done, and the .so file is not
studied how the installp recover option works) and the remove is only
actually performed after the new files have been put into position.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, my patch is at the end, leaving the rm in place. However, I could
examine looking
/libphp5.so $TARGETDIR
regards,
Michael Felt
, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
1) Who should get a bug-report?
sounds familiar, usually the complaint is against our instdso.sh
Sigh:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43012
I don’t have an AIX box to test against, anymore - but you might try the
patch that’s
Isn't the normal solution path - rather than prune, to revoke keys?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Frederick Miller fjmille...@gmail.comwrote:
Please remove me from this email list. Please unsubscribe me. Thanks.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
imho - it is a bad idea to store a session encryption key. I think the
whole idea behind dynamic keys is that they are not stored. PKI is used to
negotiate a key.
If the session keys are static then, again imho, time would be better spent
on code to establish dynamic session keys - that can be
From another test I found an unexpected side-effect and have modified
mkinstallp.ksh so that all directories retain r-x permissions.
To keep it simple the complete patch of the directory build/aix for
existing files.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
I
Now includes:
the LICENSE in the packaging
also adds a dependency for the libc in use by the building system (to
prevent issues when trying to load a package on AIX 5.3 when it was
packaged on AIX 6.1 (or higher)
uses httpd/httpd as User/Group - and changed in httpd.conf before packaging
sets file
patch and I'll send a new one with the ownership removed.
regards,
Michael
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
The User/Group shouldn't own any of the files. Is there a particular
failure this works around?
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Michael Felt mamf
I am wanting to leave the additions I have done (which are not known to any
clean option) and compare that with
a) the latest TR
b) the latest trunk
Is there a clean that goes farther than make distclean (i.e., to even
undo whatever buildconf is going to do).
Thanks,
Michael
.x and run buildconf again, but would appreciate a verification.
Thanks all!
Michael
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.netwrote:
Am 25.11.2013 21:49, schrieb Michael Felt:
I am wanting to leave the additions I have done (which are not known to
any clean
Under the assumption that the httpd-2.2.X branch is suppossed to be runninf
under the apr*-1.4.X branches I am rebuilding all from scratch and
including make check.
With apr-1.4.8 on AIX I am getting an error - testsock returns 1-of 9
errors.
More difficult for me is the apr-util make check
[X ] +1: Good to go
[ ] +0: meh
[ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why.
AIX 5.3 xlc v11 - build and startup only (must rebuild 'tester' system.)
Had a few things show up again with configure, but excellent grade from IBM
compiler: no syntax warnings - at all.
p.s. I'll get back to you about the
I have not studied logging in httpd. The only logs I have ever looked at
are the error_logs and access_logs. These look like something different.
For systems security I like to use syslog as a place to collect data. If
apr already supports, please excuse my ignorance and ignore this. If not,
1) Congradulations on an EOL - seems it was idle for a long time anyway.
2) small typo on download page:
Unix Source:
httpd-2.0.66.tar.bz2http://mirror.sdunix.com/apache//httpd/httpd-2.0.65.tar.bz2[
PGP http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2.0.65.tar.bz2.asc ] [
That is true actually, new test system - will need to look at why 2.4.4
stumbled over that, while 2.4.x did not.
Many thanks for the feedback.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
consider
some additions, but I am mainly curious about what
does not get built, but the source still exists.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Shahid khan slappy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2013 11:11 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
I have meanwhile all the compiler warnings reduced down
I have meanwhile all the compiler warnings reduced down to one:
.\lua_request.c(574) : warning C4244: 'return' : conversion from
'apr_off_t' to 'int', possible loss of data
Nice work! :)
An interesting discussion. The admin of the server I use is rather critical
about malicious connections. His way to prevent continuing malicious
connections is to route the source IP address (incoming) to 127.0.0.1 after
X errors reported from a single IP address within Y minutes.
From the logic
packaging was very good. Just a few warning messages about PKG_CONFIG_PATH
and openssl. Was discussed earlier in a thread, so it seems harmless.
build/aix/buildaix.ksh worked very well with the IBM compiler - AND - apr
and apu pre-compiled and installed (so did not use srclib/apr,
srclib/apr-util
Packaging went well, but still several compiler syntax warnings. Also, a
configure warning - that I hope has no influence:
configure: WARNING: Your APR does not include SSL/EVP support. To enable
it: configure --with-crypto
as I have --enable-ssl in the 2.2.24 configure while 2.4.X is using merely
# Failed test 9 in t/ssl/require.t at line 44
FAILED test 9
Failed 1/10 tests, 90.00% okay
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
packaging was very good. Just a few warning messages about PKG_CONFIG_PATH
and openssl. Was discussed earlier in a thread
1 - 100 of 297 matches
Mail list logo
