Re: Comment system, take two and a half
On 05/28/2012 09:38 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: Each branch different, 2.2 2.4 have some big differences between them in various areas. My 2 cents anyway. What I'm perhaps more curious to get sorted out is whether we should consider the trunk and the 2.4 documentation separate entities, or whether they should be linked, comment-wise. Currently, they are pretty much identical, but in the future it may be a good idea to keep them separate as we move towards 2.5/2.6. With regards, Daniel.
Re: Comment system, take two and a half
On 29 May 2012, at 8:50 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: Each branch different, 2.2 2.4 have some big differences between them in various areas. My 2 cents anyway. What I'm perhaps more curious to get sorted out is whether we should consider the trunk and the 2.4 documentation separate entities, or whether they should be linked, comment-wise. Currently, they are pretty much identical, but in the future it may be a good idea to keep them separate as we move towards 2.5/2.6. My gut feel is that trunk shouldn't have comments at all - trunk is fluid, and changes without warning. Comments are very likely to get stale and become more of a problem than a help. Regards, Graham --
REMOTE_USER look-ahead in a RewriteCond expr ap_expr
Hi all,
I'm trying to use the Apache 2.4 ap_expr syntax to write a complex test with
RewriteCond expr. My test uses %{REMOTE_USER}.
However, the %{LA-U:REMOTE_USER} look-ahead syntax needed to access this
variable in a per-server context doesn't seem to work inside an ap_expr
- I get a parse error.
Can anyone help me understand how to test REMOTE_USER in a RewriteCond
expr test?
Thanks,
Richard.
Re: Comment system, take two and a half
On May 29, 2012, at 5:04 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: On 29 May 2012, at 8:50 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: Each branch different, 2.2 2.4 have some big differences between them in various areas. My 2 cents anyway. What I'm perhaps more curious to get sorted out is whether we should consider the trunk and the 2.4 documentation separate entities, or whether they should be linked, comment-wise. Currently, they are pretty much identical, but in the future it may be a good idea to keep them separate as we move towards 2.5/2.6. My gut feel is that trunk shouldn't have comments at all - trunk is fluid, and changes without warning. Comments are very likely to get stale and become more of a problem than a help. I've come around to thinking that they should be separate. I think it'll be useful to have comments on trunk, but, particularly on trunk, there needs to be no expectation that comments will stick around for any time at all. In my view of this, comments should *not* be considered a permanent part of the document. Either they get incorporated into the document itself, or they get flushed. I really don't want to see comments sticking around forever on a doc. I consider them to be more of a means of contributing to the doc effort. -- Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen rbo...@apache.org
Re: REMOTE_USER look-ahead in a RewriteCond expr ap_expr
On Tuesday 29 May 2012, Richard Davies wrote:
I'm trying to use the Apache 2.4 ap_expr syntax to write a complex
test with RewriteCond expr. My test uses %{REMOTE_USER}.
However, the %{LA-U:REMOTE_USER} look-ahead syntax needed to access
this variable in a per-server context doesn't seem to work inside
an ap_expr - I get a parse error.
Can anyone help me understand how to test REMOTE_USER in a
RewriteCond expr test?
In a direct way, the answer is: not yet.
But it should be possible to capture the value with a regex and use it
as backreference $1 in an expr. Something like this (untested):
RewriteCond %{LA-U:REMOTE_USER} ^(.*)$
RewriteCond expr ... $1 ...
Does this work?
Cheers,
Stefan
Re: svn commit: r1341905 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES configure.in support/suexec.c
On 23.05.2012 17:42, jor...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jorton
Date: Wed May 23 15:42:33 2012
New Revision: 1341905
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1341905view=rev
Log:
suexec: Add support for logging to syslog as an alternative to a
logfile.
* support/suexec.c (err_output) [AP_LOG_SYSLOG]: Log to syslog.
(main): Close syslog fd if open, before execv. Add -V output
for AP_LOG_SYSLOG.
[...]
@@ -137,7 +146,14 @@ static void err_output(int is_error, con
static void err_output(int is_error, const char *fmt, va_list ap)
{
-#ifdef AP_LOG_EXEC
+#if defined(AP_LOG_SYSLOG)
+if (!log_open) {
+openlog(suexec, LOG_PID, LOG_DAEMON);
+log_open = 1;
+}
+
+vsyslog(is_error ? LOG_ERR : LOG_INFO, fmt, ap);
+#elif defined(AP_LOG_EXEC)
time_t timevar;
struct tm *lt;
Wouldn't it be preferrable to use LOG_AUTH/LOG_AUTHPRIV instead?
suexec's log messages are mostly about authorization, and sometimes
include information which should probably be hidden from the eyes of
unprivileged users.
Kaspar
