It might be worth comparing our trunk and 2.4.33 since we have had a lot of
discussion and some work around renegotiation behavior. Confirmation that
this is not new would be great.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 14:26 Eric Covener wrote:
> I tried testing the latest candidate w/ openssl 1.1.1-pre8 and n
I can get their efforts committed late this evening, if nobody beats me to
it. Expect to need a bit of crlf tweaking.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018, 12:36 Marion et Christophe JAILLET <
christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> +1, but latest zh-cn and zh-tw translation of error pages should be
> included IM
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
> I thought experimental == CTR, but if this is separate then I‘ll go
> through the votes. Just let me know what you prefer.
I basically thought the same thing, but it is clearly spelled out in STATUS.
We aught to adjust this to reflect the
Does it make sense to favor the lib/ over the lib64/ installation of this
pkg?
Is this consistent across all directory choices?
It seems we are missing a level of abstraction and failing to utilize AC
stock tools themselves... see my recent trunk/ work around PCRE for
a significant simplification/
e option we would offer instead?
> El mar., 26 jun. 2018 a las 0:19, Roy T. Fielding
> () escribió:
> >
> > On Jun 25, 2018, at 8:57 AM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 22,
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:02 AM Yann Ylavic wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:37 AM Yann Ylavic
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:49 PM, Eric Covener
> wrot
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 05:21:08PM -0400, Eric Covener wrote:
> > After CVE-2016-8743 we only accept hostnames that are valid in DNS,
> > which notably excludes underscores. But it seems like 7230 does not
> > require HTTP Host: to use a DNS re
Provided we know they were made by a native or conversant writer, I agree
with you.
There is the question of reflexively trustring google translate (automated
translate again translated automatically)... which would result in
nonsense...
But I believe we are safe in accepting these, knowing what
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:13 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
>> > should have broken IDN (punycode) international domain names.
>>
>> those are obviously dashes, not underscores, so not affected at all.
>
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> > should have broken IDN (punycode) international domain names.
>
> those are obviously dashes, not underscores, so not affected at all.
>
That assertion was a bit extreme :) But on principal, underbars are not
valid (internet) DNS, but seem
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:04 AM William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
> >
> > Question, what is a server_conf, before httpd's argv[] array
> > has even been processed?
>
> It's NULL, but these (log.c only) use
Question, what is a server_conf, before httpd's argv[] array
has even been processed?
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:07 AM, wrote:
> Author: covener
> Date: Tue Jun 19 12:07:19 2018
> New Revision: 1833827
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1833827&view=rev
> Log:
> add server_rec to log.c f
Copying dev@httpd.a.o for completeness.
-- Forwarded message --
From: William A Rowe Jr
Date: Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:13 AM
Subject: [Status] apreq-*@httpd.a.o mailing lists
To: apreq-...@httpd.apache.org
Seven+ years ago, apreq released our most recent distribution, and the
Seems like another way to break the cmake build, this time, transitive
of needing modules/httpd2 from modules/proxy (still, borked).
Should we keep doing this, or move all of the includes into include/,
or create some openssl include/ symlink monstrosity, or, do we even
have a desire to fix this r
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 8:11 PM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 24, 2018, 06:34 Eric Covener wrote:
> >>
> >> Despite the directory structure, this was not part of a "module"
For clarity's sake, the spec defines these two entities as not-equal.
Of course, %41 and 'A' are equivilant, so such a function might not be a
bad thing to have in refactoring URI handling.
On Mon, May 28, 2018, 04:10 Nick Kew wrote:
>
> >> ctx->buf = http://internal/!%22%23$/
> >> m->from.c =
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> > http://internal/!%22%23$/";>A link with special characters
>
> > ProxyHTMLURLMap "http://internal/!\"#$/"; "http://external/!\"#$/";
>
> > Is it reasonable to expect mod_proxy_html to rewrite URL encoded URLs as
> > well?
>
> IMO no, I don
First off, I need to call this out to point you to folks who have walked
this path before; https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56241
That said, our "radically pedantic" switch with HttpProtocolOptions Strict
inflicts such changes on users. Some will be unhappy, but if they serve
the con
On Thu, May 24, 2018, 06:34 Eric Covener wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Micha Lenk wrote:
> > Hi Yann,
> >
> > On 05/24/2018 12:31 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Well, first things first. Let's first fix trunk to be buildable again
> on
> >>> build systems that really only link th
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
> >
> >> That's not quite fair.
> >>
> >> For me, to be honest, I couldn't quite understand the question at
> >> all... I had a real hard time parsing it. It looked like, by voting +1,
> >> I wo
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:51 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
>
> [ ] The Apache HTTP Server project facilitates the release
>of bug fixes to the current stable httpd release, correcting
>defects to previously released code, excluding all new
>features a
With discussion exchanged (across several years), and various
arguments presented, we should be able to adopt or reject the
first of several possible questions as a PMC. This is the meta-
question, any versioning discussion is irrelevant without specific
purpose or goal, and follow on questions wou
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> On Apr 25, 2018, at 1:50 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
>>
>> Because of our conflation of patch and enhancement,
>
> It is hardly just "our"... tons and tons of s/w uses the patch number
bump for n
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 2:41 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Am 24.04.2018 um 07:20 schrieb Marion et Christophe JAILLET:
>>
>> Le 24/04/2018 à 02:58, William A Rowe Jr a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Marion et Christophe JAILLET
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:46 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>> One thing you mention above is "wait for a new minor release". I can
>>> definitely see that being an issue for our current maj.minor layout given
>>> that minor bumps are measured in years. In this proposal, unless there's a
>>> pressing ne
At the pace of our (currently 'minor', contrast to 'patch') releases there
are about 2-4 / year. I agree with the idea of monthly bug fix patch
releases.
Declaring the first minor of each year as LTS for 2 years, we could get
security fixes into legacy users hands. It would be a good starting poin
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
wrote:
>
> If we switch the framework we need to consider that with all gaps we have, we
> already have
> a large amount of tests in the current framework that need to be ported over
> time.
The OpenSSL project overhauled their test
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> Yes, exactly correct. We have three "contracts" to keep that I think aligns
>> very well with the following semver "contracts":
>> Major => API/ABI compatibility for modules
>> Minor => Feature and directives
>> Patch => Functional and confi
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:36 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> One more thing to point out that I didn't explicitly say in the previous
> message is that this suggestion implies the release branch regularly gets cut
> from trunk (rather than growing and diverging on its own). This helps avoid
> "lo
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Marion et Christophe JAILLET
wrote:
> Le 18/04/2018 à 22:12, William A Rowe Jr a écrit :
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I suspect the straightforward way to do this, in 2.6/3.0, will b
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:54 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>>
>> +1; I see any "patch" releases (semver definition) as adopting well-tested
>> bug
>> fixes. In some cases, complex patches could ar
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Am 23.04.2018 um 16:00 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>
>> It seems that, IMO, if there was not so much concern about "regressions"
>> in releases, this whole revisit-versioning debate would not have come up.
Additional concerns that amplify the regr
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Micha Lenk wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 08:54:09AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> We have a history, as well as a published "agreement" on what minor
>> version numbering means.
>
> Just to make sure I am on the same page, would you mind to make th
On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> The more I think about it, the more I *really* like a semver-ish
> approach where major represents the ABI that will not be broken, minor
> represents the feature set (for backwards compatibility) and patch
> represents forward-compatible
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 10:37 Paul Querna wrote:
>
> I believe having more minor releases and less major backports to patch
> releases is a good thing.
>
> I believe we gave the even/odd, 2.1/2.3 "unstable", thing a long run.
> About 15 years of it.
>
> Since then the wider open source world has gon
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:36 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
>> The necessity/evaluation of the dependency belongs
>> here... we once could compile httpd 2.4 against APR 1.4 family and had
>> agreement that this would continue through the lifecycle, but I seriously
>> doubt that is still true today.
>
>
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Do we need a quick APR 1.6.4 to pick up r1819938? From CHANGES:
>
> *) poll, port: re-add the wakeup pipe to the pollset after it triggered.
>Not doing this occasionally lead to httpd event MPM processes hanging
>during process shutdown
earful of a future where we may have five branches and a
> bugfix applicable to all (or worse... a security fix that would dictate
> all should be released/disclosed at the same time).
>
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
>
> On 4/19/2018 7:17 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> >
tpd/ instead.
>
> The changelogs are more readable as well, because it's obvious which
> intermediary RC releases belong together. If you look at
> https://archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/CHANGES_2.4, there is zero
> indication that e.g. 2.4.31 was never released.
>
>
> On Th
lease an RC.
Net <-> net, this is the status quo which failed us so badly this
past winter (now with alphabetic characters!)
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The idea is encouraging and fostering a broader test audience.
>
>
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:44
All informative feedback is welcome on this /discussion/ thread.
Jim, again, stop. Bullying list watchers with negative feedback
into silence is a CoC violation.
David, thank you for your detailed feedback. We are reading,
whether the feedback is warmly received or not.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at
up the status quo with different labels.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018, 10:37 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:26 AM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> With all this in mind, sho
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> With all this in mind, should we try to set things up so that the
> next release cycle uses the concept of RCs?
>
> If so, and if people like, I can come up with a baseline
> proposal on the process for us to debate and come to
> some consen
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:47 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>>
>> and BFDL/NIH-tier levels of "we don't do that, we do things this way... my
>> way or the highway."
>
> That is not quite t
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018, 09:32 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:20 AM, Stefan Eissing <
> stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
> >
> > Frankly, I think the current state of things does not work well. It
> seems folly to say we should change nothing, only have more stable releases.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> Hi All, sorry for the lazyness, but does anyone have even a partial
> set of scripts to drive the windows cmake build including obtaining
> common prereqs?
>
> I believe I have seen 1 or two batch oriented ones that I'd just as
> well avoid 'c
Does the root of this issue go back to this backport?
Author: minfrin
Date: Tue Feb 13 22:11:47 2018
New Revision: 1824180
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1824180&view=rev
Log:
mod_proxy_balancer,mod_slotmem_shm: Rework SHM reuse/deletion to not
depend on the number of restarts (non-Unix sy
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> I suspect the straightforward way to do this, in 2.6/3.0, will be to add an
>> i18n table of the error log strings extracted from and indexed by those
>> APLOGNO() entries. No match? Default English message.
>
> Please, not without an overhaul
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Marion et Christophe JAILLET
wrote:
> Le 18/04/2018 à 20:00, William A Rowe Jr a écrit :
>>
>> Localizing our error messages alone would go a long ways to being
>> friendly to non-english speaking administrators. If we don't want to
&g
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> On Apr 18, 2018, at 1:21 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>>
>> There we go again. Why do you and Graham have to make this about
>> Bill vs. yourselves?
>
> I didn't.
It's a challenge to read thi
ct for our software to be further marginalized.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> On 18 Apr 2018, at 17:55, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>>
>> So I'll start with this;
>
> Erm, would you like to cite a source for that claim? I confess it’s not one
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> IMO, this boils down to 2 things:
>
> 1. nginx, particularly, does a LOT of promoting, marketing, PR, etc...
> We don't. They get to promote their FUD all the time and remain
> pretty much unchallenged.
Launched a thread on one
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> 1. nginx, particularly, does a LOT of promoting, marketing, PR, etc...
> We don't. They get to promote their FUD all the time and remain
> pretty much unchallenged.
I'd like to break out and break down specific nginx FUD... bu
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Jim Riggs wrote:
> Fair enough. I'm fine standardizing either way. strn?cmp() is probably more
> "correct". As it stands, though, the check in core is not actually checking
> everything that log.c will handle.
There are a number of places where we have "scheme:
"Established in 1999, the all-volunteer Apache Software Foundation
oversees more than 350 leading Open Source projects, including Apache
HTTP Server --the world's most popular Web server software."
How long will that last claim remain true?
We can sum up the state of affairs from four well-respec
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Since this thread was triggered by the mod_ssl config merging problems: I
> think that was a case where a new feature was really nice, but to implement
> it the needed changes where not not easy to understand in detail. Combined
> with the c
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Stefan Eissing
wrote:
>
>> Am 17.04.2018 um 19:18 schrieb William A Rowe Jr :
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>>>> On 17 Apr 2018, at 6:08 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>>>>
>>
A shm destroy cannot remove an open shm (any more than rm
will remove an open file - at least on windows). In a graceful,
you have a lingering child holding on to that resource.
The short term fix would be to rename the offending shm resource
on each attempted graceful restart.
It may be possible
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Jim Riggs wrote:
> I didn't think of this before, but there is one edge case this would miss: if
> someone (for whatever reason) wants a relative ErrorLog *file* named
> `syslog*', for example `ErrorLog "syslog-httpd.log"' or `ErrorLog
> "syslog.log"'. It appear
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Steffen wrote:
>
> I like to continue building/testing trunk.
>
> Is there a fix coming ?
I guess not from the author. Try r1829381 now committed to trunk. If
that doesn't work, we'll revert and start again, no cycles to check
the fix myself.
17 Apr 2018, at 6:08 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
>> No enhancement since 2011-12-19 has been presented for the collective
>> community's scrutiny.
>
> Again, I’m not following.
>
> The architecture of v2.4 has been very stable, the need for breaking changes
>
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:50 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> No enhancement since 2011-12-19 has been subjected to any community
> scrutiny. This was the date 2.3.16-beta for 2.4 was announced.
Sorry that statement is somewhat unfair...
* Anyone is welcome to "be a developer&
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2018, at 4:41 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
>> We observe the "code freeze" effect (defined by three different
>> distributors) coupled with distributors deep distrust of our releases,
>> so by
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2018, at 4:41 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
>> And everything contributed to 2.4.33 release? All in vain. None of
>> that in this OS distribution, because, code freeze.
>
> I’m not following the “all in
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> IMO, the below ignores the impacts on OS distributors who
> provide httpd. We have seen how long it takes for them
> to go from 2.2 to 2.4...
They went to 2.4 once 2.4 was no longer beta. There is this concept
called "code freeze". At that p
Terrific analysis! But on the meta-question...
Instead of changing the behavior of httpd on each and every subversion
bump, is it time to revisit our revisioning discipline and hygiene?
I promise to stay out of such discussion provided that one equally stubborn
and intractable PMC member agrees t
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> From an ops point of view:
>
> You do not always have an address bar visible with the affected URL. Think of
> iframes or pop ups without address bars
> and people are bad in providing the exact point of time when the issue
> happened an
To thoroughly confuse...
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:40 AM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:41 AM, Steffen wrote:
>>>
>>> Get:
>>>
>>> Error C2440 'funct
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:41 AM, Steffen wrote:
>
> Get:
>
> Error C2440 'function': cannot convert from 'int (__stdcall *)(conn_rec *)'
> to 'ap_HOOK_output_pending_t (__cdecl *)' libhttpd
> ..\VC15\trunk\server\core.c 5724
'(__stdcall *)(conn_rec *)' != '(__cdecl *) (conn_rec *)'
Callback entr
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Bernard Spil wrote:
> Hi Stefan, Mario,
>
> I saw that 2.5.1-dev was tagged, is another release coming some time soon?
Worried me enough to look; http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/tags/
Thankfully nobody made such a tag. You'll note 2.5.0-alpha from a n
Asking me to ask myself why I did what I did 10 years ago :)
Best explanation I have is that I'd envisioned that the internal and
external trust lists would be universally accepted lists, and they are
*very* slow to parse with DNS lookups. E.g. the wikipedia X-F-F
whitelist. And a corporate firewa
SSLProtocol TLSv1.2 TLSv1.3
SSLProxyProtocol TLSv1.2 TLSv1.3
should be syntactically valid, no?
[Wed Apr 04 18:21:11.465896 2018] [ssl:warn] [pid 2228052:tid
140031042861312] AH02532: SSLProtocol: Protocol 'TLSv1.3' overrides
already set parameter(s). Check if a +/- prefix is missing.
[Wed Apr 04
Not sure if you are aware of the converse of our favorite site;
https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/viewMyClient.html
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Stefan Eissing
wrote:
> :) I have that running for HOURS already!
>
> Results were from 1.1.1-pre4
>
>> Am 04.04.2018 um 14:46 schrieb Rainer Jung :
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Luca Toscano wrote:
>
> 2018-03-26 11:35 GMT+02:00 Nick Kew :
>>
>> > As hackathon project it could be good to review some of those
>> > older-than-2011 tasks and see which ones are good to keep and which ones
>> > can
>> > be closed for no-activity/stale/not-val
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Alain Toussaint wrote:
> Le mercredi 21 mars 2018 à 15:38 +, Daniel Ruggeri a écrit :
>> Hi, all;
>>I am pleased to report that the vote to release httpd-2.4.33 has PASSED
>> with 7 binding votes
>> and 2 non-binding votes. I will begin the process of pus
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:37 PM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>> Not sure it helps its readability (not worse though), at least it
>>> helps performance
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> Not sure it helps its readability (not worse though), at least it
> helps performances.
>
> For now the patches uses a big "goto" to preserve code (AFAP), that
> could easily be turned into a do {} while.
>
> WDYT?
Did you just reintroduce the
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 1:39 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 6:43 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>> Hi, all;
>>Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>>
>> I would like
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 2:50 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> Test Summary Report
> ---
> t/modules/remoteip.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 12 Failed: 8)
> Failed tests: 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12
Solved, simply needed extra.conf.in to match up with the remoteip.t test cases.
All passing now.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 8:58 PM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
>> [Tue Mar 20 14:47:49.048998 2018] [proxy:error] [pid 291243:tid
>> 139804071643008] AH02808: Alert! worker name
>> (fcgi://localhost:9001//home/build/dev
[Tue Mar 20 14:47:49.048998 2018] [proxy:error] [pid 291243:tid
139804071643008] AH02808: Alert! worker name
(fcgi://localhost:9001//home/build/dev/piv/oss-httpd-build/bld-candidate/httpdtest-trunk/t/htdocs/)
too long; truncated to:
fcgi://localhost:9001//home/build/dev/piv/oss-httpd-build/bld-cand
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:55 AM, wrote:
> Author: minfrin
> Date: Wed Feb 14 10:55:44 2018
> New Revision: 1824221
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1824221&view=rev
> Log:
> mod_remoteip: Add PROXY protocol support
In backporting this, was there a reason that t/modules/remoteip.t
was no
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 6:43 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
>Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
> tarball as 2.4.33:
> [ ] +1: It's
Reading backwards... +1 - deferring the announcement would be fine.
We simply can't make 2.4.32 "disappear" as unreleased.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Just because it is released, doesn't mean we need to announce it. We
> can easily release a quick 2.4.33 and announce
For trunk/next only I support Yann's thoughts here.
Within the ecosystem, do we actually worry about pairing 1.0.0 OpenSSL,
pcre 6.x etc with 2.6.0 httpd? Is there any expectation that running SLES
11 will let you build modern packages? Or RHEL 5.x ... while in "extended"
pseduo-support, RedHat of
That still leaves the headache of fallback-to-release when a candidate on
these many projects isn't present (actually, the smart election between
candidate and release if both exist!) But great pointer, TY!
On Mar 15, 2018 21:46, "Jan Ehrhardt" wrote:
> Wi
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:39 PM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>>> This looks sensible, or do we say that users of mod_proxy_balancer
>>>> on Window
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> This looks sensible, or do we say that users of mod_proxy_balancer
>> on Windows should defer their upgrade? A more limited audience?
>
> +1
Should we also mention the regression against mod_security on Windows?
(Nobody can reproduce on Unix
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> *** Changes here
>We consider this release to be the best version of Apache available for
>non-Windows platforms, and encourage users of all prior versions to
> upgrade.
>
>Please note, a bug after shipping this release was di
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
> William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:52:48
> -0500):
>>The largest headache is provisioning the entire suite of non-default perl
>>modules required. Running the framework is trivial. I've
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Am 15.03.2018 um 18:09 schrieb Eric Covener:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
>>>
>>> Eric Covener in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:35:38
>>> -0400):
+1, probably the least confusing, and Wi
d, so anything on that site that assists them in going
against our guidance and better judgement probably doesn't belong.
Cheers,
Bill
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:34 PM,
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:34 PM, wrote:
>> Author: wrowe
>> Date: Tue Mar 13 20:34:36 2018
>> New Revision: 25693
>>
>> Log:
>> Drop unsupported files from the distribution site.
>>
>> These remain available from http://archive.apache.org/dis
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Stefan Eissing
> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 12.03.2018 um 11:23 schrieb Daniel Gruno :
>>>
>>> Would it be possible to just have a link that always points to the
>>> _current_ agreement, much like our docs have a /curre
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
>
>Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
> tarball as 2.4.32:
>
> [X] +1:
Doesn't our crazy old unquoted ErrorDocument directive have this issue too?
On Mar 8, 2018 16:05, "Yann Ylavic" wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:00 PM, wrote:
> >
> >*) mod_access_compat, mod_authz_host: Prevent access control
> misconfiguration
> > due to interpretation of #commen
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 03/03/2018 04:56 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>> Hi, all;
>>
>>Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I know this is a bit nitpicky, and we don't do this in al
`u' modifier ignored since `D' is the default (see `U')
ar: `u' modifier ignored since `D' is the default (see `U')
ar: `u' modifier ignored since `D' is the default (see `U')
ar: `u' modifier ignored since `D' is the default (see `U')
ar: `u
No comment?
Note that you won't see these artifacts on a same-tree build, but
will be confronted with a slew of them on any new vpath unix build.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:58 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> Any objections to
>
> --- build/mkdir.sh (revision 1825390)
> +++ build/
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2018, at 4:44 PM, Jacob Perkins wrote:
>
> I have a customer who’s attempting to use RemoteIPProxyProtocol with
> mod_remoteIP. Per 2.4 documentation, this directive should be available (
> https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mo
201 - 300 of 6469 matches
Mail list logo