On 4/26/2012 4:00 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>>
>> for all platforms these three macros are most likely set to 1;
>> these are standard C headers, and I cant imagine of a platform
>> which doesnt have these.
>> The other four defines for apr_is* are also unconditional in
>> apr_lib.h so every platfo
On 4/23/2012 7:29 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:21 AM, wrote:
>> Author: trawick
>> Date: Mon Apr 23 11:21:13 2012
>> New Revision: 1329187
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1329187&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Announcing mod_fcgid 2.3.7...
>
> BTW Bill, any plans to creat
On 4/23/2012 4:45 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
> I was going to learn how to add a mod into system, however, the pre-release
> tarball had
> been removed. I'll try it later after the official release.
Usually this is svn mv'ed directly from httpd.apache.org/dev/dist
straight over to www.apache.org/dis
On 4/20/2012 2:28 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 5:34 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 7:20 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>> Tarballs/zips are at http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_fcgid/
>>>
>>> I'd like to finish testing/voting by Friday, let the mirrors sync over
>>> the weekend, and a
On 4/17/2012 9:20 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Tarballs/zips are at http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_fcgid/
>
> I'd like to finish testing/voting by Friday, let the mirrors sync over
> the weekend, and announce on Monday. Thanks!
>
> [+/-1] Release mod_fcgid 2.3.7
+1; caviat, this is based on
On 4/20/2012 6:25 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I started cleaning out mod_ssl and mod_rewrite's comments
> in order for them to be accessible to mere mortals. Similarly
> as we have started doing with their respective documentation.
>
> The patches can be found here:
>
>http://sprun
On 4/19/2012 10:59 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
> Anyone got hard feelings about such an approach?
Only that 2.2 should be frozen, and layout changes shouldn't occur there.
I guess an alien layout which -is- set out that way for 2.4.2 should go
into trunk so their 2.4.3 is simpler to create. But I do
Odd... there is no language assurance that these statics remain static
across module reloads. A static var != static fn.
On 4/17/2012 3:07 AM, jor...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jorton
> Date: Tue Apr 17 08:07:11 2012
> New Revision: 1326980
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1326980&view
On 4/16/2012 8:16 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> On 4/9/2012 11:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> The patch does have value to a limited number of applications. I even went
>>> as far a
On 4/16/2012 8:10 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
>> This is NOT the list for starting OS wars on.
>
> Could you please point me to the correct list for that
> kind of thing? (:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AOperating_system_advocacy
That's been asked before ;-P
On 4/10/2012 8:27 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:55 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> On 4/10/2012 10:31 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:05 AM, wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +/* Cleanup the Job object if pre
On 4/10/2012 10:31 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:05 AM, wrote:
>> Author: wrowe
>> Date: Tue Apr 10 04:05:23 2012
>> New Revision: 1311569
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1311569&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Introduce FcgidWin32PreventOrphans directive on Windows to use
On 4/9/2012 11:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
> The patch does have value to a limited number of applications. I even went
> as far as to put caviats in the docs, and a see-docs note to the directive
> cmd commentary. I hope it dissuades the casual user from throwing it on th
workaround.
I presume you meant 51560 borrows the 51020 patch. Please recheck, we might
be working a record for the number of transpositions in one bug resolution.
On 3/2/2012 6:57 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Gregg,
>
> I reached the same conclusion Wednesday when I stumb
So we have live registrars, no longer "experimental", who are now
registering domains in punycode. Make of it what you will.
Do we want to recognize non-ASCII strings in the ServerName|Alias
directives as utf-8 -> punycode encodings? Internally, from the
time the servername field is assigned, it
On 4/5/2012 3:04 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> Really? I totally haven't kept up, but last I knew mod_ssl used the
> whole bucket nightmare and did not need blocking connections.
It does when it goes to re-attempt a second read() for the HELO. If
that second chance won't block, it appears to barf.
On 4/5/2012 1:14 PM, Claudio Caldato wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> We need more details in order to be able to figure out what is going on. Any
> chance that you guys have an isolated repo we can use to investigate this
> issue?
All the notes are in the dev@ list archives this past quarter.
People
Very cool :)
Claudio, we can point you precisely to where httpd 2.4 goes off the
rails. We instantiate a socket connection (accept() or AcceptEx()
yet our presumptions about the state of the socket (block/nonblock
timeouts etc) were not honored. There is a call, apr_os_socket_make()
which APR ma
you to import. Sorry we didn't reach agreement
on combine.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [RE-VOTE #3] adoption of mod_combine subproject
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:13:39 -0500
From: William A. Rowe Jr.
To: legal-disc...@apache.org
On 4/4/2012 7:52 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote
On 4/3/2012 7:28 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 04/03/2012 08:14 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> Sam's prime weakness is an aversion to delegation.
>
> You have that exactly 180 degrees backwards. I am not responding precisely
> BECAUSE I
> believe in delegation.
On 4/3/2012 2:01 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> William A. Rowe Jr. wrote on Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 13:16:22 -0500:
>
>> I also believe he did so (you
>> might also refer to the bugzilla ticket Sam hasn't replied to yet).
>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
On 3/28/2012 6:04 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Guys. You were asked a boolean question. I'm pretty sure it was
> intended to be taken literally. Have you considered just answering it?
I believe that you meant to direct this to Graham and cc me, and not visa
versa, since I don't have such an answe
this fatigueing or my humor irritating. Laughing at
ourselves can be healthy medicine and inspiring to come to more sensible and
less silly written policy. I'm quite finished being angry or irritated over
such issues :)
-Original message-
From: Graham Leggett
To: Sam Ruby
Cc: "
>From the Apache HTTP Server project;
On the combined topics of mod_firehose, mod_policy and mod_combine;
Declaring the vote on #3 failed (both originally, and the revote). RE-VOTE
#1 and #2 for firehose and policy modules (respectively) each have passed, for
adoption into httpd trunk. (Backpor
On 3/27/2012 7:22 AM, Steffen wrote:
> A new expat 2.1.0 is available, like to see it also included in apr and test
> with 2.4.2.
Excellent news! Of course OpenSSL 1.0.1 has since been released. I'm likely
to get to a quick test build Thursday, so that if there is breakage we can do
something ab
On 3/25/2012 5:18 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> I have been trying to build trunk from "trunk" versions of apr and apr-util.
> buildconf
> complains about not being able to find APR-util (or apr-UTIL). In any case,
> caps are
> involved. Windows might not complain, but UNIX does.
You make no sense.
Room for improvement? Forwarding as attach to include formatting.
Thanks for the observations, Tianyin!
--- Begin Message ---
Hi, Martin,
Thanks a lot! I found the root cause after diving into code.
The error is caused by my wrong settings. I try to create a too big
scoreboard file (which is ev
Playing with the --with-module=foo:foo feature Jim introduced last year,
I note that it can almost entirely build mod_foo.c into the server with no
supporting build files, except that Makefile.in is required.
The minimal contents of Makefile.in consists of
include $(top_srcdir)/build/special
On 3/21/2012 2:59 PM, Mark Montague wrote:
> On March 21, 2012 15:33 , "Roy T. Fielding" wrote:
>> TRACE won't work at all if the most popular end-point doesn't support it.
>
> Why would this be a bad thing? Or, to phrase it another way, what are the
> situations in
> which it is desirable tha
On 3/20/2012 4:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 3/20/2012 7:09 AM, j...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: jim
>> Date: Tue Mar 20 12:09:05 2012
>> New Revision: 1302856
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1302856&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Merge
On 3/20/2012 7:09 AM, j...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: Tue Mar 20 12:09:05 2012
> New Revision: 1302856
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1302856&view=rev
> Log:
> Merge r1302855 from trunk:
>
> Note that TRACE is not a vuln
Agreed.
> +Despite claims to the contrary, TRA
On 3/18/2012 7:17 AM, Steffen wrote:
> What are you trying to solve ?
>
> That we do not get anymore the errors like: winnt_accept: Asynchronous
> AcceptEx failed.
That bug goes to the actual socket stack, nothing we can fix, something
we want to avoid and simply disable AcceptEx due to the bro
On 3/17/2012 2:54 AM, Bing Swen wrote:
>
> Just wondering how we can test it if we can not yet (re)build the Win32/64
> binaries from the source files...
How are you not suceeding? The delta from 2.2 is rather nominal.
Please be specific, is it the missing oldschool .mak files, or some
conver
On 3/17/2012 12:59 AM, field...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: fielding
> Date: Sat Mar 17 05:59:06 2012
> New Revision: 1301867
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1301867&view=rev
> Log:
> new IANA media types as of 2012 Mar 16 18:55 PDT
I'd encourage a backport to branches/2.4.x, and branch
Ok folks, here's what we know; on some platforms the blocking behavior
is not being honored and SSL is terminated due to the "client's failure"
to provide enough bytes in time. In fact it is the fault of apr plus
the socket stack for not returning without more bytes.
That said, I neglected the fa
On 3/15/2012 1:47 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> any news on that? Sorry, but unless you give a clear statement on how to
> proceed with
> these I'm unable to fix it self; if you say that these functions need to be
> extported by
> every platform then fine - we must then either provide dummies for th
pto not building for static lib throws a
> decent sized
> monkey wrench into the httpd build. Then maybe we can connect the dots in the
> .dsw files
> and in makefile.win (which you have started sort of).
>
> Gregg
>
> On 3/14/2012 10:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
&
On 3/15/2012 4:07 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote:
>
> Any chance you can elaborate on "It appears MSDN documentation was not
> our friend... etc"?
>From MSDN and my understanding of the new wait-on-event API, it appeared
that MSDN suggested these would be defaults and we would have to adjust
for apr's
On 3/14/2012 2:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> In the attempts to keep the momentum going, I'd like to push for
> a httpd 2.4.2 release Real Soon Now.
Then this afternoon I'll propose a 'really small patch' around
'the win32 issue' and ask folks who have had problems, and those who
have not, to test
On 3/8/2012 11:47 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 12:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> I hadn't worked out yet the right
>> approach to the windows .mak files, what with the separation of httpd and
>> its dependencies. Let me spend my weekend messing with
On 3/8/2012 6:29 AM, Steffen wrote:
> I am not aware of current versions of the dependencies that have issues:
> apr-1.4.6-P1
> apr-util-1.4.1 apr-iconv-1.2.1 pcre-8.21 lua-5.1 libxml2-2.7.8 openssl-1.0.0g
> zlib-1.2.6.
> In fact, it works like a charm.
Nor am I (aware of issues), however expat
On 3/7/2012 5:40 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> svn:externals is only a client-side mechanism. This will not bring
> log-message-tags/ into the branch, and especially not within the tag.
Right, in this case it's fine.
This is a 'for programmer's reference' datum that isn't needed when we
export the tarb
On 3/6/2012 5:18 PM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> On 06 Mar 2012, at 4:46 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
I'm fine with that.
What about the folks who voted to keep it last time the subject
arose?
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/users/38
On 3/5/2012 12:29 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> A proposal to adopt mod_combine is attached.
>>
>> [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
>> [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
> [X] Option 3: do n
On 3/2/2012 12:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> A proposal to adopt mod_policy is attached.
>
> [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
> [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
> [ ] Option 3: do not adopt
72 hours have passed, consensus indicates that this module is accepted
ts in httpd. I guess the same could be said
for a sandbox; we are all welcome to create a sandbox at any time without
any vote at all. I'd rather that mod_combine be given recognition as
a proper subproject
> [X] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
On 3/3/2012 9:08 AM, William
On 3/1/2012 12:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
> A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached.
>
> [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
> [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
> [ ] Option 3: do not adopt
72 hours have passed; the firehose module and utility,
On 3/2/2012 2:16 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> Mod_noloris was a quick&dirty fix to a rather serious problem. It was
> superseded when Stefan produced a better fix, so there's no
> expectation now that mod_noloris will ever 'graduate'. I don't think
> that's a model for most incoming modules!
In that
A proposal to adopt mod_combine is attached.
[ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
[ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
[ ] Option 3: do not adopt
[Prior to this vote, this proposal had not passed; jim alone had joined
minfrin in supporting the proposal. Please take another look and vote
On 3/2/2012 6:29 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> All;
>I'm hoping I can make it to ApacheCon NA again this year. I had a lot
> of fun presenting 'The mod_proxy_balancer cookbook' in 2010 and would
> like to submit to present again. Since I didn't get a lot of feedback
> one way or the other last ti
Gregg,
I reached the same conclusion Wednesday when I stumbled on a dirty mod_fcgid
checkout here.
I'll review your comments and then determine how to proceed (commit the feature
which could be useful, port the feature to apr, or concur it isn't needed.)
Because of the way the Windows Service Co
On 3/2/2012 12:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> A proposal to adopt mod_policy is attached.
>
> [X] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
Provided that mod_policy is droped into modules/testing
.../debugging or .../experimental
A proposal to adopt mod_policy is attached.
[ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
[ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
[ ] Option 3: do not adopt
[Prior to this vote, option 2 had previously passed with minfrin, jim
and wrowe in support. Subsequently minfrin, jim introduced option 1.
Pl
On 3/2/2012 2:14 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> mod_firehose meets a need. But my +1 has to be conditional on
> satisfactory integration of the complementary "firehose" utility
> alongside it, presumably in /bin/ .
That obligation is met. minfrin acknowledges you could do more
than what the firehose e
On 3/1/2012 4:17 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:20 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> Or rather, had we not exported a single symbol, then the veto was
>> unjustified?
>
> I don't remember the details, but it was presented by you as a new API.
On 3/1/2012 9:08 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Why don't you stop with your passive-aggressive bullshit, and read the
> thread over on legal-discuss where we talked about fixing the "short
> form" IP Clearance process. The IP policies have not changed, but they
> *should*, along the lines Roy suggests
On 3/1/2012 4:17 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:20 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you are signing up to do that ip-clearance, since it doesn't
>> seem to be coming from the committer.
>
> IP clearance for an existing committer is
On 3/1/2012 3:02 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Modules do not have to be tested *before* they appear in trunk. That's
> putting the cart before the horse. Part of the development process
> (while in trunk) is doing the testing portion. And hey... if it never
> gets tested, then it gets marked as "experim
On 3/1/2012 1:58 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 1:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 2/29/2012 6:25 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, but they are modules. Hence, their mere existence in our tree
>>> is not a technical
On 3/1/2012 2:17 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> One quick question: can I assume that the test is ideally in a different
> machine than the
> httpd system being tested, or do the tests assume localhost?
You can do either, see t/TEST --help
On 3/1/2012 2:05 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> Seems dangerous to even comment in this flow - but as I am all about thinking
> "testing" at
> the moment - is there any thought about how to test this. From a packaging
> point of view I
> would expect tooling to be able to test are "included" functions
On 3/1/2012 12:40 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
>
> Dimpled chad: I would support option 2 if 1 doesn't have traction.
Yup - that's implicit.
On 2/29/2012 6:25 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> Yes, but they are modules. Hence, their mere existence in our tree
> is not a technical reason to exclude them. We have a modular architecture
> so that people who don't want a module don't have to build it.
Which explains mod_macro how, exactly?
On 3/1/2012 12:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
> A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached.
>
> [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
> [X] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
> [ ] Option 3: do not adopt
Let's simply reset this whole mess.
A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached.
[ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
[ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
[ ] Option 3: do not adopt
[Prior to this vote, option 2 had previously passed with minfrin, issac,
sctemme, jim in support. Subs
On 2/29/2012 6:25 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2012, at 9:42 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> Let's take Roy's position on the attached vote discussion, it's relevant.
>> These new modules are certainly additions/deletions to httpd.
>
> Yes
On 2/29/2012 8:59 AM, André Malo wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 February 2012 04:11:35 William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> I withdraw this vote, reverting my position to -1, until collaboration and
>> respect for options and insights of fellow committers as well as project
>>
On 2/29/2012 9:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:32 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> It's the reason why mod_aspdotnet was ejected, and why mod_arm4, mod_ftp and
>> perhaps even mod_fcgid are all on their way out of the project as it is,
&g
On 2/29/2012 9:41 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> You have only three votes for mod_policy... please fix this today, before I
>> withdraw what starts to look like an ill-cast vote for introducing code with
&
On 2/29/2012 8:59 AM, André Malo wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 February 2012 04:11:35 William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> I withdraw this vote, reverting my position to -1, until collaboration and
>> respect for options and insights of fellow committers as well as project
>>
On 12/18/2011 7:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Dec 17, 2011, at 3:51 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> NOBODY suggested that this proposed subproject go into trunk.
>
> I must have been reading a different thread that you when
> the issue of having these as
On 12/14/2011 2:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 12/13/2011 12:39 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 12/13/2011 10:22 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>>> - mod_policy: "HTTP protocol police"
>>>
>>> mod_policy is a set of httpd filters that detect an
On 12/18/2011 10:45 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2011, at 10:51 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> I proposed instead that you directly propose mod_policy, one of the
>> three modules, as a core httpd module, because it already has a clear
>> fit and really nee
On 2/28/2012 8:11 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> AP_DECLARE_DATA just affects visibility, but the switch to __stdcall
> for AP_DECLARE() is an API change. (important, since AIX needs this
> in 2.4.x)
If they weren't AP_DECLARE()ed before, they weren't exported. Ergo they
are only used internally.
On 2/28/2012 5:47 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 29 Feb 2012, at 12:21 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> After two months, firehose still didn't obtain another +1, so the vote to
>> incorporate firehose into trunk stands at 3 +1's, 1 -1, and therefore
>> fail
e) so there are now three votes for a
mod_combine subproject, if you want to proceed with that effort as well.
Yours,
Bill
On 12/20/2011 12:53 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>>>
>>> Given that mod_firehose is significan
On 2/28/2012 10:46 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> # /usr/local/bin/httpd -V
>> AH00534: httpd: Configuration error: No MPM loaded.
>
> if this post were from Joe User, I'd ask:
>
> what were your MPM
# /usr/local/bin/httpd -V
AH00534: httpd: Configuration error: No MPM loaded.
On 2/26/2012 2:11 PM, André Malo wrote:
> * William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 2/25/2012 10:09 AM, minf...@apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: minfrin
>>> Date: Sat Feb 25 16:09:03 2012
>>> New Revision: 1293634
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache
On 2/25/2012 10:09 AM, minf...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: minfrin
> Date: Sat Feb 25 16:09:03 2012
> New Revision: 1293634
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1293634&view=rev
> Log:
> The current version of the server is v2.4.
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/htdocs/manual/m
On 2/22/2012 9:21 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
> Does the event MPM work on Windows? Or is Apache on Windows still limited to
> the winnt
> MPM? If so, doesn't this leave Apache on Windows /far /behind other
> platforms when it
> comes to threads required for a given load?
No / Yes / Compared to even
On 3/21/2011 9:38 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 21:13, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> On 3/20/2011 7:43 PM, Dan Poirier wrote:
>>> On Sun. 2011-03-20 at 07:47 PM EDT, "William A. Rowe Jr."
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>&
On 2/21/2012 4:03 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Fritsch wrote on Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 22:53:44 +0100:
>> On Tuesday 21 February 2012, Michael Felt wrote:
>>> FYI - I see no notable difference in the W messages with the IBM
>>> vacpp (xlc) v7 compiler using no CFLAGS and CFLAGS='-O2
>>> -qlanglv
On 2/21/2012 4:00 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> (I'm working on the assumption that API consumers are allowed to write
> their code in C89.)
I believe that in 2012 that is a more than fair assumption, go with it.
I'm not sure we have a C99 consensus, although I believe it's past time
that we shou
On 2/21/2012 4:08 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> It must be pointed out however that people on Redhat (and derivatives) are
> able to roll their own RPMs for deployment today should they choose to do so
> by following the instructions here:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/platform/rpm.html
On 2/21/2012 3:26 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> - NOTE: Windows users may have problems with Apache httpd 2.4.1 and
>> - SSL. As such, Apache 2.4.x is currently not recommended for
>> - Windows servers.
>> + NOTE to Windows users: AcceptFilter None has replaced
>> DisableWin32Accept
On 2/21/2012 2:58 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> A couple of thoughts really quick, and we'll take this to the
> packagers@ list because I think it is a better fit to that list
> (lots of arcane windows details that might actually be interesting
> to .depot/.pkg/.rpm mainta
A couple of thoughts really quick, and we'll take this to the
packagers@ list because I think it is a better fit to that list
(lots of arcane windows details that might actually be interesting
to .depot/.pkg/.rpm maintainers)...
1. Base on now-current Studio 2010 SP1. Because anything else
n
On 2/21/2012 2:44 AM, wr...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: wrowe
> Date: Tue Feb 21 08:44:06 2012
> New Revision: 503
>
> Log:
> We are stuck with our Binary ABI graph for the next five years. That doesn't
> seem like much time unless you are a maintainer :)
>
> There's no way on Her Green Earth I'
On 2/20/2012 9:16 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> So far this documentation doesn't seem to deal with build activities
> which is where the conversation has grown... I'm not sure it should.
I disagree. I wrote paragraphs of build docs for more than one platform.
If the docs need to improve, let's
On 2/20/2012 8:04 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
> Ok, issues with all mod_ssl would be a big problem.
>
> If you needed to do DisableWin32AcceptEx, though, then something was already
> not quite right.
>
> What you mean by "mod_ssl on a port", though? You just mean running an HTTPS
> listener right?
On 2/19/2012 1:56 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> Platform specific ... documentation.
> Should I be thinking about writing something for AIX here, as I get it
> finished. Or is the
> README file going to be sufficient?
It seems there is a lot of confusion going on right now, since each
platform gets a
On 2/17/2012 10:38 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 3:15 PM, Jess Holle wrote:
>> Does this mean the Windows-specific issues have been resolved?
>>
>> Or that this is a non-Windows GA?
>
> No, the Windows specific issue (PR 52476) has not been solved.
> So it's GA for all but Windows.
It's q
On 2/15/2012 3:16 PM, Steffen wrote:
> You are suggesting now that QoS and/and Spyware is the cause. None of that
> here, plain
> server.
>
> Repeat:
>
> I still think:
> Hardly believe that it is a driver problem, I guess more it is an ASF
> design issue, seen it nowhere else for all that years
On 2/15/2012 2:49 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
>
> How did "timing issues" not affect the old hack, and why not use the old
> "known to work"
> hack for at least AcceptFilter none, up until some better fix is found? If
> that fix is
> found and cannot be implemented till 2.next, then 2.next it is.
Th
On 2/15/2012 2:08 PM, Steffen wrote:
> Ever contacted the owners of a network stack driver, like Microsoft, Intel
> and Broadcom ?
No. I have never encountered the bug, myself. Of course, I disable
all MS QoS magic, and won't tolerate spyware living on the network
layer, but to each their own.
On 2/15/2012 11:39 AM, Steffen wrote:
>
> Blaming (stack) drivers with set to data:
> Bug shows when tested with server rated cards from Broadcom and Intel with
> old and new certified drivers on clean 2008 R2 and SP1 and XP and with
> consumer rated cards like Realtek, and that on quite some diff
On 2/15/2012 8:12 AM, Steffen wrote:
> Forget to be clear that SSL is still broken.
> Expect that 2.4.1 is not got released as GA.
And to be more clear for any potential announcement;
1. AcceptFilter data [default] + mod_ssl works
(except when it doesn't - those users who previously had to u
On 2/13/2012 7:07 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> Builds fine on slackware, though, I did find it mildly amusing I had to
> rebuild PHP.
> Never had to do that before, not even with 2.4.0
If you didn't have to rebuild mod_php5 between httpd 2.2 and 2.4.0,
that was our (serious) error fixed in 2.4.1. Yo
On 2/8/2012 7:44 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> I have no desire, on the other-hand, to hold a T&R for the
> "deprecate --with-included-apr" patch since, to be honest,
> I doubt if we'll ever see it in timely fashion. I will, however,
> update configure so that it no longer mentions the httpd-*-deps
1701 - 1800 of 6469 matches
Mail list logo
