From the description of it the version of Apache you are using is 2.2.3
instead of 2.2.4.
Would the 3pp you are using by any chance be SM 6.0 ??
I think this kind of inquiries first of all belongs on the users list.
-ascs
De : Renu Tiwari [mailto:[EMAIL
Hi All,
We have installed 64 bit Apache 2.2.4 on windows. We downloaded the installer
from http://www.blackdot.be/?inc=apache/binaries
The issue is when Apache is configured with a thirdparty module (64 bit as
well) and is started the error is shown in event viewer as:-
Faulting application
Renu Tiwari wrote:
The issue is when Apache is configured with a thirdparty module (64 bit
as well)
Well, which module probably makes a difference, and if the crash isn't
present *without* this module, you should be contacting the author of
the module, not httpd.
and is started the error is
Hi,
Like wrowe said... if it only happens with the module its mostlikely
the module and not httpd (or my binary of httpd in this case).
Although I've seen this before. The binaries on blackdot are compiled
with visual studio 2005 and link to MSVCR80.dll, if the module is
compiled against an
Hello,
I'm trying to build Apache 2.2.4 with VS 2008 Beta 2 (under Vista to
make it simple), and I have a problem.
I patched several stuff to have it compile nicely, but the program
crashes at startup: An unhandled non-continuable exception was thrown
during process load. The program '[4636
Hello,
I think Mario's post below is quite clear. I am wondering, however,
*where* he sees the error message he cites. A log? A popup command
window? An ok box?
I see a popup window. If needed I'll take a screenshot in the evening.
Is there additional details (a window caption or
other
Mladen Turk wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'll look as soon as my Longhorn beta is up and running, I'm betting
that this is all related to the permissions and 'no documents in the
application tree' ruleset.
Right, once when I added 'Full Control' to the 'Program Files'
for Users
Hello,
I've tested apache_2.2.4-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8d.msi under Longhorn Beta 3
(VMware). Only thing that I changed from the default windows setup, was that
I turned off the firewall to test it from my network.
After installation I got an error message Process successfull executed. I
got that
what?
- Original Message -
From: Mario Brandt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 3:47 AM
Subject: Apache 2.2.4 under Win32 Longhorn
Hello,
I've tested apache_2.2.4-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8d.msi under Longhorn Beta 3
(VMware). Only thing that I
?
But glad to hear this works just fine - it implies we are not far from
working also on Vista, Longhorn's 'end user workstation' cousin.
- Original Message -
From: Mario Brandt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 3:47 AM
Subject: Apache 2.2.4 under Win32
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
yacsha wrote:
what?
I think Mario's post below is quite clear. I am wondering, however,
*where* he sees the error message he cites. A log? A popup command
window? An ok box? Is there additional details (a window caption or
other details?) Does it continue to
Mladen Turk wrote:
Just tracking the Vista problems down.
One problem is the installer. Every awk config rewrite fails
so the installation ends up without config files.
Didn't try with Administrator account directly, but with the
member of the administrators group.
I'll look as soon as my
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Just tracking the Vista problems down.
One problem is the installer. Every awk config rewrite fails
so the installation ends up without config files.
Didn't try with Administrator account directly, but with the
member of the administrators group.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:14:32PM +0100, Mladen Turk wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
Should we add a cert-creation .sh and .vbs script to support/ for this
purpose (on any platform)? Sounds like a great idea to me!
+1 from me.
If you find my vbs useful then I will contribute it.
I've
Joe Orton wrote:
Drop an eye on:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/connectors/trunk/jni/examples/mkcerts?view=markup
- auto-generating dummy certs which claim to be issued by or to the ASF
doesn't seem like a good idea at all
It is an example, so anyone is entitled to change it for
its
Hi,
I'll take this as a resounding no, and that the draft package is
sufficient. Moving it within 24 hrs unless I hear a specific
technical objection.
I've heard from a couple of users that they prefer *.zip archives rather than
the *.msi files; and hacked a WSH script to fix the config files
Guenter Knauf wrote:
I've heard from a couple of users that they prefer *.zip archives
rather than the *.msi files; and hacked a WSH script to fix the config
files when using a zip distribution.
Should we add a cert-creation .sh and .vbs script to support/ for this
purpose (on any platform)?
On Mar 22, 2007, at 12:22 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
I've heard from a couple of users that they prefer *.zip archives
rather than the *.msi files; and hacked a WSH script to fix the
config
files when using a zip distribution.
Should we add a cert-creation .sh
Sander Temme wrote:
On Mar 22, 2007, at 12:22 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
I've heard from a couple of users that they prefer *.zip archives
rather than the *.msi files; and hacked a WSH script to fix the config
files when using a zip distribution.
Should we add
Hi,
Should we add a cert-creation .sh and .vbs script to support/ for this
purpose (on any platform)? Sounds like a great idea to me!
+1 from me.
If you find my vbs useful then I will contribute it.
I've spent a good time to find at least something working; the Inet is full of
stuff, but
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
Should we add a cert-creation .sh and .vbs script to support/ for this
purpose (on any platform)? Sounds like a great idea to me!
+1 from me.
If you find my vbs useful then I will contribute it.
I've spent a good time to find at least something working;
Drop an eye
Hi Mladen,
Drop an eye on:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/connectors/trunk/jni/examples/mkcerts?
view=markup
I've also spend a good deal of time on that, so it might be helpful :)
yeah!! Thanks! Will do, and update my vbs soon
thanks, Guenter.
I am attempting to build version 2.2.4 on solaris8. I am not wholy sure
what is breaking but it appears my primary symptom is :
/usr/local/src/httpd/2.2.4/srclib/apr/libtool --silent --mode=link
/opt/gcc/3.4.6/3.4.6_SunOS_sun4u/bin/gcc -pthreads -I/usr/local/include
-O -DHARD_SERVER_LIMIT
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'd like to propose we ship apache_2.2.4-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8d.msi with
this release. Couple of notes...
Did anyone else have feedback on the comments/notes? I know Roy's made some
additional progress with the notification
Marc Stern wrote:
For info, I developed for the Belgian government, a reverse proxy
installation script (Unix/Windows) that encompasses a certificate
creation, and its registration in the config file. This uses gawk.
It is available on
in
those extra config files as well?
I think so.
Working on this as we speak. I'll go over all of
trunk/docs/conf/extra/*.conf.in, then propose the backport.
Good catches; in the meantime - we'll let the user fix their config for
the remaining (hopefully short) life of 2.2.4 and obtain some end
technical objection.
I think, if you mean is it okay to post 2.2.4 binaries containing
openssl?, then the answer is yes.
Roy
unless I hear a specific
technical objection.
I think, if you mean is it okay to post 2.2.4 binaries containing
openssl?, then the answer is yes.
Correct - I meant 'are there any other feedbacks' and the quiet tells
me nobody has anything to add.
I believe you already confirmed we are solid
On Mar 16, 2007, at 2:55 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Working on this as we speak. I'll go over all of
trunk/docs/conf/extra/*.conf.in, then propose the backport.
Good catches; in the meantime - we'll let the user fix their config
for
the remaining (hopefully short) life of 2.2.4
Hello,
I am trying to compile a module against the Apache 2.2.4 codebase using
Visual C++ .NET. The compile stops with an error fatal error RC1107:
invalid usage. From what I can tell, I am having trouble with the
resource compiler not liking some extra quotes. Is there a way to fix
=778highlight=build+apache+mod+ssl++visual+express
Hopefully you can get some use out of this.
Regards,
David Wortham
On 3/13/07, Chris Kukuchka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to compile a module against the Apache 2.2.4 codebase using
Visual C++ .NET. The compile stops with an error
Chris Kukuchka wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to compile a module against the Apache 2.2.4 codebase using
Visual C++ .NET. The compile stops with an error fatal error RC1107:
invalid usage. From what I can tell, I am having trouble with the
resource compiler not liking some extra quotes
session cache. Otherwise, the quotation issues
are fairly minor. I see that in trunk on unix we quote paths, and in
extra/httpd-ssl.conf we don't. Time to rigorously quote every path in
those extra config files as well?
I think so.
One final nitpick: I now have both httpd 2.2.4 and Tomcat 6.0.10
On Mar 6, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
Service start bitches about a syntax error on line 62 of extra/
httpd-ssl.conf:
SSLSessionCache takes one argument, SSL Session Cache storage
(`none', `nonenotnull', `dbm:/path/to/file')
The failing value is: SSLSessionCache shmcb:C:/Program
On Mar 6, 2007, at 3:56 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Don't know about the shm session cache. Otherwise, the quotation
issues
are fairly minor. I see that in trunk on unix we quote paths, and in
extra/httpd-ssl.conf we don't. Time to rigorously quote every path in
those extra config files
For info, I developed for the Belgian government, a reverse proxy
installation script (Unix/Windows) that encompasses a certificate
creation, and its registration in the config file. This uses gawk.
It is available on
http://www.belgium.be/zip/eid_authentication_proxy_fr.html
Another
On Mon, February 19, 2007 6:01 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The reason for http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/win32-msi/ to
remain out-of-tree (and for goodness sakes, the reason to REMOVE the .pkg
and .rpm generation sources) is that packaging after the tree is tagged
is largely
On Feb 18, 2007, at 8:01 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Everyone agrees that a batch file or something that would help the
users make
a server certificate would be goodness; this isn't a win32-specific
issue,
either, if you examine the most FAQ'ed on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I believe we ship
-0.9.8d.msi
and it's source tree...
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/win32-msi/trunk/
which includes everything not incorporated from the official 2.2.4 release
tarball build (other than the msvcrt .msm merge module from Microsoft
which is pulled in automatically by InstallShield
-ssl.conf.in ...
Currently with the 2.2.4 release on Win32 I see that it gets now fixed during
build process generation of httpd-ssl.conf; Makefile.win line 686 - file date
from 07-Dec-2006:
gsub( /SSLMutex file:@[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ssl_mutex/, SSLMutex default
);
so if that is now the right
Hi,
What I'm most unhappy about is that we have 783 bugs in New,
Assigned, Reopened, NeedInfo... that seems like quite a lot. Perhaps
Then let's start and solve two of the 783 so we can these cross off the list
+---+
|
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 10:11:18PM -0800, Sander Temme wrote:
On Jan 11, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
A week sounds good to me. I guess some of them are my fault as I only
set them to resolved fixed and never visited them again as I thought
that they reached their final state.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Issac Goldstand wrote:
I'd agree if mod_ssl is disabled by default, but if it is, why are they
downloading the mod_ssl-enabled installer?
You miss the point, it's illegal in some jurisdictions to possess/use
such cryptography. That installer will remain as a
On Jan 12, 2007, at 3:33 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
What is the difference between a RESOLVED bug and a CLOSED
one? Is
it not possible to re-open/add comments to CLOSED reports or
something?
It's always seemed like a meaningless distinction to me, going through
marking stuff CLOSED seems like a
Joe Orton wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 10:11:18PM -0800, Sander Temme wrote:
Yes, Closed should be the final resting place for bug reports, for
good or for bad.
What is the difference between a RESOLVED bug and a CLOSED one? Is
it not possible to re-open/add comments to CLOSED
On Jan 12, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jan 12, 2007, at 3:33 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
What is the difference between a RESOLVED bug and a CLOSED
one? Is
it not possible to re-open/add comments to CLOSED reports or
something?
It's always seemed like a meaningless distinction to
On 01/12/2007 11:14 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
On Jan 12, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jan 12, 2007, at 3:33 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
What is the difference between a RESOLVED bug and a CLOSED one? Is
it not possible to re-open/add comments to CLOSED reports or something?
lör 2007-01-13 klockan 01:06 +0100 skrev Ruediger Pluem:
This could be modified to:
1. Fix on trunk = Change state in Resolved, fixed and add a comment with
revision
of fix.
2. Proposed for backport = Leave state in Resolved, fixed and add a
comment with
revision of backport
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Do note that not all users that will chose the SSL package will know how
to correctly fill in the fields.
s/not all/a small minority of/
They can't figure out what Domain Name means, let's be serious :)
On 1/10/07, *Issac Goldstand*
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
On 1/10/07, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Do note that not all users that will chose the SSL package will
know how
to correctly fill in the fields.
s/not all/a small
On 1/11/07, Issac Goldstand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
./configure; make; make install
We don't deposit a certificate today for Unix. After considering
this a bit
more, I agree with jerenkrantz.
True... if you don't enable mod_ssl by default and add a note in the
conf
Hi,
could someone please add version 2.2.4 to the product Apache httpd-2 in
bugzilla?
Are there any ideas how we can document / automate this as part of the release
process?
This issue pops up regulary after each release.
Regards
Rüdiger
On Jan 11, 2007, at 12:42 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
could someone please add version 2.2.4 to the product Apache
httpd-2 in bugzilla?
Done.
Are there any ideas how we can document / automate this as part of
the release process?
This issue pops up regulary after each release.
Hard
Issac Goldstand wrote:
I'd agree if mod_ssl is disabled by default, but if it is, why are they
downloading the mod_ssl-enabled installer?
You miss the point, it's illegal in some jurisdictions to possess/use
such cryptography. That installer will remain as a service to those
communities,
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Hi,
could someone please add version 2.2.4 to the product Apache httpd-2 in
bugzilla?
Are there any ideas how we can document / automate this as part of the
release process?
This issue pops up regulary after each release.
My bad, sorry, it's already been done
On 01/11/2007 10:12 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
On Jan 11, 2007, at 12:42 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
could someone please add version 2.2.4 to the product Apache httpd-2
in bugzilla?
Done.
Thanks.
Are there any ideas how we can document / automate this as part of
the release
On 01/11/2007 10:22 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Hi,
could someone please add version 2.2.4 to the product Apache httpd-2 in
bugzilla?
Are there any ideas how we can document / automate this as part of the
release process?
This issue pops up regulary after each
On Jan 11, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
A week sounds good to me. I guess some of them are my fault as I
only set
them to resolved fixed and never visited them again as I thought
that they reached
their final state. Now I found out that you only have the option to
close it once
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Apache HTTP Server 2.2.4 Released
The Apache Software Foundation and the Apache HTTP Server Project are
pleased to announce the release of version 2.2.4 of the Apache HTTP Server
(Apache). This version of Apache is principally
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.
I'd like to propose we ship apache_2.2.4-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8d.msi with
this release. Couple of notes...
Roy has started the details spelled out at http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html
and I'm certain he will complete them sometime shortly, here. That's a red
flag that prevents us from
On 1/10/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A final question for all, do we wish to install an arbitrary, on the fly self
signed default.crt/default.key? Do we want to help them fill out the details
or use stock details? Or do we want them to use openssl.exe to generate one
for
I think the MSI should autogenerate a self-signed cert at least (last
thing we need is for people to deploy a static pre-distributed cert
which would make it that much easier to do man-in-the-middle attacks).
Would be great if the MSI had a choice to use an existing cert, or
generate a new one
Do note that not all users that will chose the SSL package will know how to
correctly fill in the fields. My experience tells me if there is a package
with XYZ and without most chose it with XYZ even if they don't need it.
So if there is a dialog in the installer that would ask for the
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Do note that not all users that will chose the SSL package will know how
to correctly fill in the fields.
s/not all/a small minority of/
They can't figure out what Domain Name means, let's be serious :)
On 1/10/07, *Issac Goldstand* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL
On 1/10/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Do note that not all users that will chose the SSL package will know how
to correctly fill in the fields.
s/not all/a small minority of/
Do not underestimate user stupidity ;) ok maybe the number won't be
On 01/10/2007 10:40 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Does this sound sane?
+1
Regards
Rüdiger
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
.
There could be a large number of production sites running Win2k, so there is apt to be a lot of buzz
and forum posts about you need to add this new directive for 2.2.4.
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.
Glad
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
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 8, 2007, at 10:09 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The RC has been running on people.apache.org as of 1:46PM today.
Rekicked a 48 hour release clock from that mark. Afternoon the of the
9th I'll call the vote, it would be good to see a two-day update from
yourself, Joe or another
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 12:09:17AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Before I go any further, httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip is updated here at 6am UT
and will take an hour to move across to the live site
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
while the .tar files remain unchanged. Feedback
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Um, 'updated' how? Did you mean 'uploaded'? -- justin
Updated per the other comments in the same email you elided.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I'm very very much against changing release artifacts once they have
been produced. Those changes mandate 2.2.5, IMO. -- justin
Well, correcting the additional cruft under srclib/zlib and srclib/openssl,
which are not part of the distribution, is a no brainer.
So I
? As I begged,
if anyone objects, I'll revert and repost.
No cause for 2.2.5.
I would post that under the patches/ directory and if you want, note
it in the 2.2.4 announcement. But, I largely view the releases as
sacrosanct once posted for review and voting. -- justin
,
if anyone objects, I'll revert and repost.
No cause for 2.2.5.
I would post that under the patches/ directory and if you want, note
it in the 2.2.4 announcement. But, I largely view the releases as
sacrosanct once posted for review and voting. -- justin
No hassle. Updated, fresh package
in a source package.
So, what Makefile.win does hack-msvc8-httpd-2.2.4.patch apply to?
That looks like it has some httpd-specific stuff, so I'm not clear how
that is a third-party Makefile. Or, am I misunderstanding something
about the patch you posted? Or was the diff between the Windows zip
files
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 1/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The directories themselves, nevermind the .mak files within them, should
have never existed in a source package.
So, what Makefile.win does hack-msvc8-httpd-2.2.4.patch apply to?
Justin, this is giving me
Makefile.win does hack-msvc8-httpd-2.2.4.patch apply to?
Justin, this is giving me a headache, follow the entire thread next time :)
I *did* follow the entire thread, but it didn't make any sense.
The directories == srclib/zlib and srclib/openssl which were in the very
first roll of httpd-2.2.4-win32
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]
httpd
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
; Win32 apr_os_socket_put is going to need to learn
how to set the local/remote addresses as 'identified' for purposes of
working within httpd. And the getpeername bug needs a workaround/hack.
All in all - very good catch.
Bill
Tom Donovan wrote:
I have had some difficulties running 2.2.4 RC
+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
Before I go any further, httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip is updated here at 6am UT
and will take an hour to move across to the live site
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
while the .tar files remain unchanged. Feedback to several issues inline...
Sander Temme wrote on 01/07/07:
The RC has been
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:
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]
httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
+/-1
[ ] Release
/ 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
[ ] Release httpd 2.2.4
Let the voting begin, and kick off
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
with and without doing cvtdsp.pl -2005 without it won't compile due
to rc.exe errors.
Jorge
On 1/6/07, 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
, 2007 8:41
Subject: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
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
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
