On 1/29/2012 11:53 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Looking over the code, impl as a hook seems more isolated,
rather than the current impl which is intrusive (which is
part of what we're trying to avoid, aren't we?)
OK, patch is attached. This needs
Hi,
We are using Apache 2.2.21 with our product in HP. As we all know that during
some failure operations, Windows OS stores the memory dump as .mdmp .hdmp
files. In our case we have observed credentials (in plain text) in those dump
files, which is a security concern for us.
During our
On 31 Jan 2012, at 1:27 PM, Rai, Pravesh R (STSD) wrote:
We are using Apache 2.2.21 with our product in HP. As we all know that during
some failure operations, Windows OS stores the memory dump as .mdmp .hdmp
files. In our case we have observed credentials (in plain text) in those dump
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:27:32 +
Rai, Pravesh R (STSD) pravesh@hp.com wrote:
Hi,
We are using Apache 2.2.21 with our product in HP. As we all know that during
some failure operations, Windows OS stores the memory dump as .mdmp .hdmp
files. In our case we have observed credentials
On Jan 30, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
I had assummed that apache2 was so that people could test apache2 without
killing their apache1 installation.
And you are correct...
Back in the day, we used 'apache' as the name of the web-server
(Powered by Apache anyone?), and so that
On 31 Jan 2012, at 1:54 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
I can look at RPM, but I am at least 80% of the way with installp. A
quickDirty one is already ready, but I want to finish it up a little bit more
(sub filesets, dependancies).
What I meant was, we currently keep the various config files and
On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
We don't release 'snapshots'...
That doesn't mean early adopters don't seek out version control or
snapshots of the current state of software. I'm pretty sure you've
lived on the bleeding edge of one system package or another.
I backported some trunk changes to 2.4.x (mostly cosmetic ones) and a
few changes also in the other direction to keep code changes small in
parts were there are still no functional changes.
A few backports are open, because I'm not sure, whether we want to
backport. I left out the obvious
On 31 Jan 2012, at 5:07 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
6) mod_cache
Applied to 2.4.x but not in trunk:
r1208384 | minfrin | 2011-11-30 12:21:43 +0100 (Wed, 30 Nov 2011) | 4 lines
mod_cache: Revert http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1070179
as per the following
On 31.01.2012 16:17, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 31 Jan 2012, at 5:07 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
6) mod_cache
Applied to 2.4.x but not in trunk:
r1208384 | minfrin | 2011-11-30 12:21:43 +0100 (Wed, 30 Nov 2011) | 4 lines
mod_cache: Revert
Hi Stefan,
On 29.01.2012 20:53, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Looking over the code, impl as a hook seems more isolated,
rather than the current impl which is intrusive (which is
part of what we're trying to avoid, aren't we?)
OK, patch is attached.
On 31 Jan 2012, at 5:43 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
All the items listed are actual code differences. The log info was the
shortest way to explain the differences. I tried hard to verify, that the
differences I've seen are actually the ones generatde by these missing
commits.
In this case
On 31.01.2012 17:17, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 31 Jan 2012, at 5:43 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
All the items listed are actual code differences. The log info was the shortest
way to explain the differences. I tried hard to verify, that the differences
I've seen are actually the ones generatde by
Thx for digging into this!
On Jan 31, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
I backported some trunk changes to 2.4.x (mostly cosmetic ones) and a few
changes also in the other direction to keep code changes small in parts were
there are still no functional changes.
A few backports are
On Jan 31, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Is it applicable?
7) .htaccess handling
=
r1229021 | niq | 2012-01-09 05:01:06 +0100 (Mon, 09 Jan 2012) | 5 lines
Core configuration: add
On 31 Jan 2012, at 6:37 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
So:
[ ] leave trunk as is, i.e. do not forward port the changes that are in 2.4
but not in trunk
[ ] sync trunk with 2.4 because that's a better baseline for adding
improvements
[ ] something else (what?)
Trunk has the most up to
-Original Message-
From: Rainer Jung [mailto:rainer.j...@kippdata.de]
Sent: Dienstag, 31. Januar 2012 17:37
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Questions on open ports between trunk and 2.4.x
On 31.01.2012 17:17, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 31 Jan 2012, at 5:43 PM, Rainer Jung
On Jan 31, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
9) Event MPM
I think everything apart from Paul's new queue has been backported, but
please double check this list:
I believe you are correct and the diffs seem to show that the
main deltas are related to the Q. Also, from
On 31.01.2012 17:38, Jim Jagielski wrote:
5) mod_authnz_ldap
==
r1231257 | covener | 2012-01-13 20:18:03 +0100 (Fri, 13 Jan 2012) | 3 lines
whitespace only: shift a block refactored in r1231255 over 8 spaces.
r1231255 | covener | 2012-01-13 20:16:50 +0100 (Fri, 13 Jan 2012) |
On Jan 31, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rainer Jung [mailto:rainer.j...@kippdata.de]
Sent: Dienstag, 31. Januar 2012 17:37
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Questions on open ports between trunk and 2.4.x
On 31.01.2012 17:17,
Just to be clear, the current thinking is that we do not bundle
apr/apu at all with 2.4.x... either as a sep tarball (the -deps),
nor simply slapped in there (ala 2.2.x)...
I wonder if the issue is that we call that tarball httpd...-deps. I
wonder if people would think differently if we named it
Stefan, as the main proponent of the APLOG changes, do you have
cycles to review and complete the below??
On Jan 31, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
2) log tags
===
r1209743 | sf | 2011-12-02 23:26:54 +0100 (Fri, 02 Dec 2011) | 3 lines
Add APLOGNO() macro for unique tags for
On 1/31/2012 8:50 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
We don't release 'snapshots'...
That doesn't mean early adopters don't seek out version control or
snapshots of the current state of software. I'm pretty sure you've
lived on the bleeding
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:44:07 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
7) .htaccess handling
=
r1229021 | niq | 2012-01-09 05:01:06 +0100 (Mon, 09 Jan 2012) | 5 lines
Core
On 1/18/2012 6:22 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jan 17, 2012, at 3:42 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 17 Jan 2012, at 10:32 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
Why not just do it how it has always been done, that is to include the
latest release of APR/APU(/APR-I on Win) for the httpd release? It seems
On 1/31/2012 11:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Just to be clear, the current thinking is that we do not bundle
apr/apu at all with 2.4.x... either as a sep tarball (the -deps),
nor simply slapped in there (ala 2.2.x)...
I wonder if the issue is that we call that tarball httpd...-deps. I
wonder
On 1/31/2012 11:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Just to be clear, the current thinking is that we do not bundle
apr/apu at all with 2.4.x... either as a sep tarball (the -deps),
nor simply slapped in there (ala 2.2.x)...
I wonder if the issue is that we call that tarball httpd...-deps. I
wonder
On 1/31/2012 11:49 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Best yet, they probably won't be
So unless every RM -convenience package
Scratch that. Stupid touchpad.
On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:50 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 1/31/2012 11:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Just to be clear, the current thinking is that we do not bundle
apr/apu at all with 2.4.x... either as a sep tarball (the -deps),
nor simply slapped in there (ala 2.2.x)...
I wonder if the
On Jan 31, 2012, at 11:59 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 1/31/2012 8:50 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
We don't release 'snapshots'...
That doesn't mean early adopters don't seek out version control or
snapshots of the current state
On Tuesday 31 January 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Stefan, as the main proponent of the APLOG changes, do you have
cycles to review and complete the below??
On Jan 31, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
2) log tags
===
r1209743 | sf | 2011-12-02 23:26:54 +0100 (Fri, 02 Dec
On Tuesday 31 January 2012, Rainer Jung wrote:
1) mod_reqtimeout
=
r1202255 | pquerna | 2011-11-15 16:49:19 +0100 (Tue, 15 Nov 2011) |
1 line disable mod_reqtimeout if not configured
It looks like mod_reqtimeout is now inactive by default in trunk,
but ses some builtin
On 30.01.2012 21:11, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Do I dare float the idea of a 2.4.1 TR very soon??
I'm done with flodding the list with trivial backports.
Still open are:
A) Testing/Fixing the bucket problems. There were two bugs, and I have
lost the overview, how the fixes are related. One was
On Tuesday 31 January 2012, Gregg Smith wrote:
On 1/29/2012 11:53 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Looking over the code, impl as a hook seems more isolated,
rather than the current impl which is intrusive (which is
part of what we're trying to
Joe, can we bump forward to branches/2.4/? Running on www.a.o or some
subset of a.o would help get us to a 2.4.1 tag and release.
On 1/26/2012 1:16 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Fixed in 1236350/1236351
On Jan 26, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Joe
And www.a.o or some subset on windows.
Op 31 jan. 2012 om 21:41 heeft William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net het
volgende geschreven:
Joe, can we bump forward to branches/2.4/? Running on www.a.o or some
subset of a.o would help get us to a 2.4.1 tag and release.
On 1/26/2012 1:16 PM,
On Tuesday 31 January 2012, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 30.01.2012 21:11, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Do I dare float the idea of a 2.4.1 TR very soon??
I'm done with flodding the list with trivial backports.
Still open are:
A) Testing/Fixing the bucket problems. There were two bugs, and I
have
On 1/31/2012 3:52 PM, Steffen wrote:
And www.a.o or some subset on windows.
No, we have no hosting at the ASF served from Windows.
Understood. And considering above I shall change the apache2 to httpd in
my layout.
Once I have all the scripts together to create something like the
httpd.spec file I'll ask about how it should/could be integrated - so I can
test that as well.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Graham Leggett
you might want to consider changing the meaning of + from apache2 to
httpd :)
Now I am using /var/httpd and /etc/httpd rather than /var+ and /etc+
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
Understood. And considering above I shall change the apache2 to httpd in
On 31.01.2012 22:23, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 31 January 2012, Rainer Jung wrote:
1) mod_reqtimeout
=
Now trunk is made consistent with 2.4.x (module is active with default
values if loaded but not explicitely configured). r1238826 (sf).
2) log tags
===
On 31.01.2012 22:50, s...@apache.org wrote:
Author: sf
Date: Tue Jan 31 21:50:03 2012
New Revision: 1238824
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1238824view=rev
Log:
Merge r1225199:
Check during configtest that the directories for error logs exist
PR: 29941
I added r1238833:
Fix handling
Apache HTTP Server 2.2.22 Released
The Apache Software Foundation and the Apache HTTP Server Project are
pleased to announce the release of version 2.2.22 of the Apache HTTP
Server (Apache). This version of Apache is principally a security
and bug fix release,
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 14:40 -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The release is a snapshot of time. All we are saying if
we bundle apr/apu (in whatever fashion) is that at the
time we are releasing httpd, here are the additional
ASF packages (apr/apu) that we're providing to you, the
end user, for
44 matches
Mail list logo
