William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon resync)
contain the following tarballs for approval
httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
I counted 7+1, 0-1. Thanks everyone.
re: the Windows 2000 0.0.0.0 IP address problem
Bill,
Both solutions work.
Applying win32sock_is_known.patch corrects the problem for win2000.
The Win32DisableAcceptEx directive also works to correct the problem (without
the patch).
-tom-
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
It's actually
Tom Donovan wrote:
re: the Windows 2000 0.0.0.0 IP address problem
Bill,
Both solutions work.
The Win32DisableAcceptEx directive also works to correct the problem
(without the patch).
That's your bug - AcceptEx inhibits proper behavior of getpeername(),
if you would like to start an
re: start an incident at Microsoft
I'll try - but since Win2000 is in what MS calls Extended support phase, only security bugs are
accepted. I'll describe it as creatively as I can...
re: I don't see this as a showstopper
True. The Win32DisableAcceptEx directive certainly works.
There
Tom Donovan wrote:
I'd vote to fix it in 2.2.4 rather than deal with the noise - but
personally I'm happy either way since I now know the workaround.
We won't - 2.2.4 is done.
We could scuttle 2.2.4, but given the overwhelming improvements I'm
really loathe to do that. Let 2.2.4 live, and
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Tom Donovan wrote:
I'd vote to fix it in 2.2.4 rather than deal with the noise - but
personally I'm happy either way since I now know the workaround.
We won't - 2.2.4 is done.
We could scuttle 2.2.4, but given the overwhelming improvements I'm
really
On Jan 6, 2007, at 2:41 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon
resync)
contain the following tarballs for approval
httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
+/-1
[ ]
On 1/6/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[+1] Release httpd 2.2.4
tested with worker MPM on RedHat 4/ia32 and Solaris 10/SPARC32
On 1/6/2007 at 12:41 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William
A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon resync)
contain the following tarballs for approval
httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
I have had some difficulties running 2.2.4 RC on Windows 2000.
The remote IP is always seen as 0.0.0.0.
Here are a few lines from my logs\access.log:
0.0.0.0 - - [07/Jan/2007:11:22:59 -0500] GET /server-status HTTP/1.1 403 215
0.0.0.0 - - [07/Jan/2007:11:23:36 -0500] GET / HTTP/1.1 200 20417
I
Tom, thanks for the analysis and bug report - your trace follows mine but
the getpeername was news to me.
W.R.T. httpd you made the assumption Windows has the peer name - which
is true with AcceptEx but won't be true in any other context. This is
the exception not the rule.
So a couple
+1, all sigs verified on Darwin Kernel Version 8.8.0 (10.4.8) powerpc
powerpc-apple-darwin8-gcc-4.0.1 (GCC) 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc.
build 5367)
All tests successful, 23 tests and 14 subtests skipped.
Files=65, Tests=2078, 100 wallclock secs (48.33 cusr + 13.37 csys =
61.70 CPU)
re: the Windows 2000 0.0.0.0 IP address problem
A quick look through win32/sockets.c shows code to fill in remote_addr after accept() and connect(),
as well as after acceptEx(). This led me to believe that Windows has the peer name.
Ditto for the win9x_*() functions in Apache
On 6 Jan 2007, at 07:41, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon
resync)
contain the following tarballs for approval
httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
+/-1
[ ]
Tom Donovan wrote:
Perhaps it would be simpler to presume that remote_addr *is* always
known on Windows, and make sure all the Windows APR socket functions
live up to this rule.
Simpler? Sure, if apr is only for httpd when AcceptEx() is in use :-/
Of course, that's not true, the
Tom, speculating here without a 2000 box close - would you try to
DisableWin32AcceptEx please? Perhaps the flaw actually resides in how
AcceptEx and GetAcceptExSockaddrs, and how they interact with the socket?
Bill
Tom Donovan wrote:
I have had some difficulties running 2.2.4 RC on Windows
Tom Donovan wrote:
I see that apr_os_sock_put() set remote_addr_unknown=1 in earlier APR
versions too.
It's actually apr_os_sock_make() and although it set unknown=1 where there
was no remote addr, it assumed unknown from alloc_socket() was 0.
Try the attached patch please?
Bill
Index:
Seems to me that the autodetection which used to prevent mod_deflate
from building on win32 unless zlib is in the srclib directory is broken.
I have a vanilla unzip for the win-src, and it's failing on missing
zlib headers...
On 1/6/07, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL
This is a wild guess but
Line 82 of makefile.win:
!IF EXIST(srclib\zlib)
in the win-src packaged the zlib and openssl folders exist without the files
being in there.
I guess this broke it.
On 1/7/07, Issac Goldstand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to me that the autodetection which used to
On 01/07/2007 08:16 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
-0 on SuSE Linux 10.1 x86_64, gcc 4.1.0
Due to the apr-util bug 41308
(http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41308) the 64 bit
build does not work if a system wide 32 bit expat library is present.
Can
On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:41 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon
resync)
contain the following tarballs for approval
httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
+/-1
[ ]
On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:41 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Let the voting begin, and kick off 2.2.5 efforts. I understand Jim
is still
interested in RM'ing 2.2.5 later this month.
The RC has been running on people.apache.org as of 1:46PM today.
http://people.apache.org/server-status
Doesn't seem to work for me. Compiles without errors just the regular
warnings.
But when I try to run any of the binaries I get:
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7573/errorvs2005jp1.jpg
I'm using visual studio 2005 as always. Following the same steps I've been
doing since 2.2.0
I tried with
Builds fine with Visual Studio 2005 Service Pack 1
It is available with SSL at the Apache Lounge:
http://www.apachelounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1237
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, January 06,
I'll give it another whack later today but from IDE this time.
I'll keep you posted
On 1/6/07, Gustavo Lopes mail:Apache@geleia.net wrote:
No problems compiling (with openssl0.9.8d and zlib1.2.3) with visual
studio
2005 from the command line, except for the usual trouble with the manifest
where exactly did you add this in the Makefile?
After some searching it does seem that the errors I' mgetting are related to
missing or wrong manifest files.
On 1/6/07, Gustavo Lopes mail:Apache@geleia.net wrote:
No problems compiling (with openssl0.9.8d and zlib1.2.3) with visual
studio
2005
, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 18:39
Subject: Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Very true. Steffan, in order to be a community player, we prefer that
you do NOT publish unreleased binaries unless you VERY
Gustavo Lopes wrote:
No problems compiling (with openssl0.9.8d and zlib1.2.3) with visual
studio 2005 from the command line, except for the usual trouble with the
manifest files.
What trouble? All the libraries/exe's have a post build step that does this.
Going back to a virgin unpack of the
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Gustavo Lopes wrote:
No problems compiling (with openssl0.9.8d and zlib1.2.3) with visual
studio 2005 from the command line, except for the usual trouble with the
manifest files.
What trouble? All the libraries/exe's have a post build step that does this.
where exactly did you add this in the Makefile?
After some searching it does seem that the errors I' mgetting are related
to
missing or wrong manifest files.
Line 608 of /Makefile.win.
Then prepare the environment and build with nmake -f Makefile.win PORT=80
INSTDIR=x:\path installr
You
. etc.
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 20:21
Subject: Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Gustavo Lopes wrote:
No problems compiling
On 01/06/2007 08:41 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon resync)
contain the following tarballs for approval
httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
.asc / .md5 OK
httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
.asc / .md5 OK
+1 on Solaris 8 / 9,
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
-0 on SuSE Linux 10.1 x86_64, gcc 4.1.0
Due to the apr-util bug 41308
(http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41308) the 64 bit
build does not work if a system wide 32 bit expat library is present.
Can you clarify - if you specific --with-builtin-expat
33 matches
Mail list logo
