On May 27, 2015 5:26 AM, Mario Brandt jbl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Tom,
I saw you on the httpd dev mailing list about that topic. How did you
manage to build apache against 1.0.2?
Cause if I try that I get in my VM
/opt/apache2/modules/mod_ssl.so: undefined symbol: SSL_CONF_CTX_finish
or on
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:55 AM Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
it would be nice to focus energy on 2.4 and later...
I think it's
No issue for me.
How many time would bug/security fixes would still be backported (from
when we decide so)?
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
it would be nice to focus energy on 2.4 and later...
On 05/27/2015 11:33 AM, Mario Brandt wrote:
Hi Tom,
I tried on Debian 7 and 8 both x64
To see your configure options would help a lot.
The missing symbol is in the lib.
mario@sasuke:~$ whereis libssl.so
libssl: /usr/lib/libssl.a /usr/lib/libssl.so
mario@sasuke:~$ readelf -s
Here's my proposed comment to inject in trunk/2.4/2.2 default httpd-ssl.conf
- any adjustments here?
# httpd 2.2.30, 2.4.13 and later force-disable aNULL, eNULL and EXP ciphers,
# while OpenSSL disabled these by default in 0.9.8zf/1.0.0r/1.0.1m/1.0.2a.
+1
Agreed +1. That's nice and
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
No need to go off...
Did I?
2.2 has been out for almost 10 years.
Irrelevant to the discussion...
2.4 for a bit over 3. That is a LONG time.
Specifically, http://svn.apache.org/r1243503
Generally unusable, the
one thing it means is having compelling stories involving the latest hot tech
that use 2.4
basically, any time there is a how-to-FOO somewhere on the www that uses
nginx for the web server component, there needs to be a better how-to-FOO
that uses httpd 2.4 ;) (I don't even think 2.2
Your thought seems to be that we EOL 2.2 when the number of
2.2 deployments the number of 2.4 ones. My thought is that
we EOL 2.2 in order to *hasten* that event, just like just
about every other open-source and non-open source software
project out there.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen?
Nope, we'll let the internet speak for itself -
http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_details/ws-apache/2
We are nowhere near close enough to
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Andy Wang aw...@ptc.com wrote:
On 05/26/2015 11:25 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com
mailto:ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Andy Wang aw...@ptc.com
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:58 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Andy Wang aw...@ptc.com wrote:
I initially thought openssl disabled the NULL ones by default but when i
started playing with openssl cipher strings and saw them I got confused.
On 27 May 2015 at 17:42, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
it
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts
The 2.2.x branch is still of interest to the product I work on.
So I am willing to devote effort towards its maintenance.
Thanks,
Mike
On 5/27/2015 7:46 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
What we need to know for the 2.2.x branch is basically this:
Developers (committers or not):
[Y] I am
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
it would be nice to focus energy on 2.4 and later...
People here
Hi Tom,
I tried on Debian 7 and 8 both x64
To see your configure options would help a lot.
The missing symbol is in the lib.
mario@sasuke:~$ whereis libssl.so
libssl: /usr/lib/libssl.a /usr/lib/libssl.so
mario@sasuke:~$ readelf -s /usr/lib/libssl.so | grep SSL_CONF_CTX_free
531:
Focus your energy on anything you like.
Can't grok whether that's snarky or not... I'll assume not :)
My point is that if we EOL 2.2 (with some definition of EOL)
then people on 2.2 (or earlier) will have some *real* incentive
to move off of 2.2 towards 2.4 (or later)...
Basically, we need something to kick people off 2.2
and get them to 2.4. By stating that 2.2 will ONLY get
security related
Developers (committers or not):
[Y] I am willing to help resolve security issues in the 2.2.x branch.
[N] I am willing to help address non-security issues in the 2.2.x branch.
PMC members:
[Y] I am willing to test and vote on proposed 2.2.x releases.
Only security ones.
Maybe
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
My point is that if we EOL 2.2 (with some definition of EOL)
then people on 2.2 (or earlier) will have some *real* incentive
to move off of 2.2 towards 2.4 (or later)...
Basically, we need something to kick people off
No need to go off... 2.2 has been out for almost 10 years.
2.4 for a bit over 3. That is a LONG time. I'm simply
*suggesting* (no BDFL posturing Mr. Rowe) that after 10
years, maybe it's time to say that 2.2's era is done, and
2.4's time is here, if not already past. I'm simply trying
to encourage
Now that even stability-loving Debian is providing 2.4.x with full security
support, moving on from 2.2 seems to make sense.
--
Tim Bannister – is...@c8h10n4o2.org.uk
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
crazy and not-so-crazy ideas will speed the movement to 2.4 irrespective
of distro schedules (not sure how much :) )
Here one: Since containers are the new hotness, how about being
more Docker/Rocket/whatever
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Focus your energy on anything you like.
Can't grok whether that's snarky or not... I'll assume not :)
Please assume not :) ASF projects should still remain
scratch-your-own-itch(es).
Your message certainly had an
crazy and not-so-crazy ideas will speed the movement to 2.4 irrespective of
distro schedules (not sure how much :) )
Here one: Since containers are the new hotness, how about being
more Docker/Rocket/whatever friendly (whatever that means)? :)
Hope making this suggestion is OK and that
On 27 May 2015, at 18:26, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
one thing it means is having compelling stories involving the latest hot tech
that use 2.4
basically, any time there is a how-to-FOO somewhere on the www that uses
nginx for the web server component, there needs to be a
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Tim Bannister is...@c8h10n4o2.org.uk
wrote:
On 27 May 2015, at 18:26, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
one thing it means is having compelling stories involving the latest hot
tech that use 2.4
basically, any time there is a how-to-FOO somewhere on
Not wanting to boast, but maybe mod_h2 for httpd 2.4 can play a role in
motivating people to migrate away from 2.2.
I have not looked into having it work on 2.2 and no interest in doing so. If we
get the ALPN support into 2.4.13, mod_h2 can be just dropped in to such a
server. And distros
Here at AL quite a lot sticking with 2.2 because third-party modules which are
not available with 2.4. Like mod-perl etc.
Op 27 mei 2015 om 22:42 heeft Stefan Eissing stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de
het volgende geschreven:
Not wanting to boast, but maybe mod_h2 for httpd 2.4 can play a
I know we have some infrastructure lurkers here.
How can we pilot test cwiki performance, and what assistance is available
for migrating content from wiki-cwiki if we like it?
I got the impression a migration was imminent around ACNA, what's the
current outlook? Is there someplace we can track?
On 2015-05-27 17:34, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen?
Nope, we'll let the internet speak for itself -
On 26.05.2015 10:33, Rainer Jung wrote:
I find it questionable. I would find it more natural to embed the params
in the cert files they apply to, so e.g. the DH params in the RSA cert
file and the EC params in the ECDH cert file and also to not require a
special order for the files which at
On 28/05/2015 07:38, olli hauer wrote:
- for long time there was no working mod_php module for 2.4, and changing to
php-fpm was not for everyone a solution.
huh?
I personally since dawn of the httpd/php love have always only ever used
mod_php and at no time did I have a a non usable
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Choose one;
[ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to
that date
[X] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal
in Nov, '15.
Enough of this ad-hominem
Choose one;
[ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to
that date
[ ] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal
in Nov, '15.
Le 28/05/2015 06:44, William A Rowe Jr a écrit :
Choose one;
[ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases
to that date
[X] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this
proposal in Nov, '15.
On 28/05/2015 03:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
No need to go off... 2.2 has been out for almost 10 years.
2.4 for a bit over 3. That is a LONG time. I'm simply
*suggesting* (no BDFL posturing Mr. Rowe) that after 10
years, maybe it's time to say that 2.2's era is done, and
2.4's time is here,
On 5/27/2015 9:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
Choose one;
[ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to
that date
[X] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal
in Nov, '15.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
On 28/05/2015 03:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[...] maybe it's time to say that 2.2's era is done, and
2.4's time is here, if not already past. I'm simply trying
to encourage us to work on the future and not focus on
the
Am 27.05.2015 um 08:40 schrieb Kaspar Brand:
On 26.05.2015 10:33, Rainer Jung wrote:
I find it questionable. I would find it more natural to embed the params
in the cert files they apply to, so e.g. the DH params in the RSA cert
file and the EC params in the ECDH cert file and also to not
Hi Jeff,
I finally had some time to follow the instructions you gave me.
And... it compiled! Great!
Did take me another 4.5 hours btw.
Half of that time got into rewriting the source code for MSVC; the other half
into finding out why my 32-bit compilation didn't link correctly against my
43 matches
Mail list logo
