Re: svn commit: r1414161 - /httpd/mod_mbox/trunk/module-2.0/mod_mbox_cte.c
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:50:37 -
rj...@apache.org wrote:
+/* Special case utf8: it is often unknown (no alias) */
+if (!strcmp(charset, utf8)) {
charset was uppercased just before this (at least when called from
within this source file), so a comparison to a lowercase string isn't
useful!
--
Nick Kew
Re: svn commit: r1414161 - /httpd/mod_mbox/trunk/module-2.0/mod_mbox_cte.c
On 27.11.2012 14:51, Nick Kew wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:50:37 -
rj...@apache.org wrote:
+/* Special case utf8: it is often unknown (no alias) */
+if (!strcmp(charset, utf8)) {
charset was uppercased just before this (at least when called from
within this source file), so a comparison to a lowercase string isn't
useful!
There are two calls to this method, the other one comes from a different
file. That's the one that was frequently logged in the error log of the
ASF mail-archives server. The upper case version didn't show up there.
For consistency and because that might depend on the platform I now
included checks against both versions. I refrained from using
strcasecmp() because I don't expect mixed case here.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: svn commit: r1413732 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules: generators/mod_info.c generators/mod_status.c mappers/mod_imagemap.c proxy/mod_proxy_balancer.c proxy/mod_proxy_ftp.c
It's to avoid double escaping...
On Nov 26, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Nick Kew n...@webthing.com wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:18:57 -
j...@apache.org wrote:
==
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_imagemap.c (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_imagemap.c Mon Nov 26 17:18:54 2012
@@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ static char *imap_url(request_rec *r, co
if (!strcasecmp(value, referer)) {
referer = apr_table_get(r-headers_in, Referer);
if (referer *referer) {
-return ap_escape_html(r-pool, referer);
+return referer;
}
Isn't this the opposite change to the others? And a case that looks
at first glance to be potentially exploitable from a third-party site?
--
Nick Kew
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
Hey folks, just to revive this thread again, here's a current comment thread to our documentation on: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/platform/windows.html#comment_502 There's a couple of things to take away from this: * We made no announcements (on our website) that we're essentially dropping Windows support with 2.4 (until further notice) We should change that ;) * Some people still don't quite grasp that the ASF is driven by volunteers, no matter how professional the output may look. i - Original Message - On 18 Nov 2012, at 4:41 PM, Igor Galić i.ga...@brainsware.org wrote: Seeing how much trouble Debian's default layout causes for support I'd rather we don't mess with that. Our layout is well defined, well documented and well tested. Moving everything elsewhere is confusing at best. +1. At the very least we should continue during the v2.4 cycle what we started in the v2.4 cycle, and an upgrade shouldn't break existing configs within reason. Regards, Graham -- -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org URL: http://brainsware.org/ GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Igor Galić i.ga...@brainsware.org wrote: Hey folks, just to revive this thread again, here's a current comment thread to our documentation on: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/platform/windows.html#comment_502 There's a couple of things to take away from this: * We made no announcements (on our website) that we're essentially dropping Windows support with 2.4 (until further notice) For posterities sake -- we haven't dropped Windows support. There just aren't (currently) contributed binaries or an installer posted on our website. A note would be nice, binaries would be nicer, and an installer would probably be the nicest.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
Hey folks, Am 27.11.2012 19:13, schrieb Eric Covener: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Igor Galići.ga...@brainsware.org wrote: just to revive this thread again, here's a current comment thread to our documentation on: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/platform/windows.html#comment_502 There's a couple of things to take away from this: * We made no announcements (on our website) that we're essentially dropping Windows support with 2.4 (until further notice) For posterities sake -- we haven't dropped Windows support. There just aren't (currently) contributed binaries or an installer posted on our website. A note would be nice, binaries would be nicer, and an installer would probably be the nicest. well, I cant really get this now; I psoted here 2 times, and Gregg did post self: we have binaries available - just not msi but exe installer; and Gregg has even 64-bit versions - why dont we get some feedback about if we should put them out into release folder?? I believe these binaries are good enough to be released, and for the installer I'd say: we change the default path to c:\apache24 which is less trouble to handle on Vista and up, and see what we get on feedback of the users ... I would even be fine with only a zip archive with a batch file or script for fixing up paths in the conf file and creating a service, and perhaps we should offer that too ... the only point to resolve is that Gregg cant do the releases self but needs a PMC for signing and putting up the artifacts - but I'm willing to assist with that once we get some agreement to put his stuff up. Gün.
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
On 11/27/2012 5:11 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote: Hey folks, Am 27.11.2012 19:13, schrieb Eric Covener: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Igor Galići.ga...@brainsware.org wrote: just to revive this thread again, here's a current comment thread to our documentation on: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/platform/windows.html#comment_502 There's a couple of things to take away from this: * We made no announcements (on our website) that we're essentially dropping Windows support with 2.4 (until further notice) For posterities sake -- we haven't dropped Windows support. There just aren't (currently) contributed binaries or an installer posted on our website. A note would be nice, binaries would be nicer, and an installer would probably be the nicest. well, I cant really get this now; I psoted here 2 times, and Gregg did post self: we have binaries available - just not msi but exe installer; and Gregg has even 64-bit versions - why dont we get some feedback about if we should put them out into release folder?? I believe these binaries are good enough to be released, and for the installer I'd say: we change the default path to c:\apache24 which is less trouble to handle on Vista and up, and see what we get on feedback of the users ... I would even be fine with only a zip archive with a batch file or script for fixing up paths in the conf file and creating a service, and perhaps we should offer that too ... +1 on the .zip files as we have these available now. Can work towards/finish an installer after there's some sort of agreement. Gregg
Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
the only point to resolve is that Gregg cant do the releases self but needs a PMC for signing and putting up the artifacts - but I'm willing to assist with that once we get some agreement to put his stuff up Sorry for not commenting earlier . I'm +0.9 (+1 but know this stuff is not up my alley). I don't think we need to wait for these to be perfect, but we should somehow telegraph that the build/packaging of contributed Windows binaries is a work in progress.
