Re: 2.4.27

On 2017-07-18 14:25, Eric Covener wrote: > Argh, not right, missed the other return stmt. > > It seems like proxy_trans will return OK to translate_name() and not > let mod_rewrite in non-perdir run at all. It is rigged to run before > mod_rewrite. Ok, it seems that my rewrite issue has gained

Re: 2.4.27

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek >> wrote: >>> >>> Have you seen this sentence? >>> > So

Re: 2.4.27

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek > wrote: >> >> Have you seen this sentence? >> So ProxyPass has precedence over other directives. It is evaluated first. This can

Re: 2.4.27

On 2017-07-18 12:54, Yann Ylavic wrote: > You should probably re-check with latest 2.4.27, where some > regressions with regard to php-fpm (since 2.4.20) where finally > addressed (see https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61202). I did. 2.4.27 fixed a proxy_fcgi problem and

Re: 2.4.27

mod_rewrite behaves differently when using mod_php and > mod_proxy_fcgi. This sounds more like a bug, because it really shouldn't. > > I used rewrite with mod_php. It worked. > Then I switched to mod_proxy_fcgi. Now it does not. > > So why is that? I also mentioned I have to debu

Re: 2.4.27

Hi David, Thanks for your reply, but I have already established in my previous email what the order of evaluation is. Have you seen this sentence? >> So ProxyPass has precedence over other directives. It is evaluated >> first. This can lead to a number of problems. On 2017-07-18 09:33, David

Re: 2.4.27

You need to use SetHandler. You can't use rewrites with ProxyPass because of the order of evaluation. Example config: Define php-fpm unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi://php-fpm # make sure the proxy is registered with the unix socket; we can then use just "fcgi://php-fpm" in proxy and rewrites

Re: 2.4.27

On 2017-07-17 03:50, Luca Toscano wrote: > mod-proxy-fcgi is the preferred solution over mod-fcgi, and we have > documentation about it. Any specific reason to use libapache2-mod-fcgid? > (asking for curiosity and/or to decide if a doc update is needed :) I am using mod_proxy_fcgi exactly for

Re: 2.4.27

> "LT" == Luca Toscano writes: LT> mod-proxy-fcgi is the preferred solution over mod-fcgi, and we have LT> documentation about it. Any specific reason to use libapache2-mod-fcgid? LT> (asking for curiosity and/or to decide if a doc update is needed :) It was all I

Re: 2.4.27

Hi James and Helmut, 2017-07-17 0:59 GMT+02:00 Helmut K. C. Tessarek : > On 2017-07-16 18:41, James Cloos wrote: > > And I've not found any *working* documentation on how to switch to using > > php7.0-fpm and libapache2-mod-fcgid. > mod-proxy-fcgi is the preferred solution

Re: 2.4.27

On 2017-07-16 18:41, James Cloos wrote: > And I've not found any *working* documentation on how to switch to using > php7.0-fpm and libapache2-mod-fcgid. Yea, the documentation on https://wiki.apache.org/httpd/PHP-FPM is also flawed. e.g. if you use the proxy option enablereuse=on in a

Re: 2.4.27

>>>>> Jim Riggs <apache-li...@riggs.me> writes: > See previous discussion in the "2.4.27" thread, specifically: > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/bae472cadaeeb761b88bb4569cc0b7d87bc2dcb2fbcbf472d895f32e@%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E I did see that a

Re: 2.4.27

; continue to work, but HTTP/2 will no longer be negotiated. [Stefan > Eissing] > > Why break h2 w/ prefork. > > AIUI, one still needs to use prefork with the perl and php modules. > > And it works fine here with 2.4.25. > > That change makes 2.4.27 worthles

Re: 2.4.27

refork. AIUI, one still needs to use prefork with the perl and php modules. And it works fine here with 2.4.25. That change makes 2.4.27 worthless. -JimC -- James Cloos <cl...@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

Re: 2.4.27

On 2017-07-11 08:55, David Zuelke wrote: > That PHP bug affects parsing of PHP-FPM's config file. It has nothing > to do with the FastCGI interface or its runtime behavior. Nope, it also fixed a web application for me. see https://github.com/nextcloud/server/issues/5660 -- regards Helmut K. C.

Re: 2.4.27

Am 11.07.2017 um 14:55 schrieb David Zuelke: On 10. Jul 2017, at 16:04, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 06.07.2017 um 19:28 schrieb Jacob Champion: Administrators using prefork who would like to switch to HTTP/2 in the future need to understand the limitations of the

Re: 2.4.27

On 10. Jul 2017, at 16:04, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 06.07.2017 um 19:28 schrieb Jacob Champion: >> Administrators using prefork who would like to switch to HTTP/2 in the >> future need to understand the limitations of the prefork architecture they >> have selected.

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache HTTP Server 2.4.27 Released

Apache HTTP Server 2.4.27 Released July 11, 2017 The Apache Software Foundation and the Apache HTTP Server Project are pleased to announce the release of version 2.4.27 of the Apache HTTP Server ("Apache"). This version of Apache is our latest GA release of the new genera

Re: 2.4.27

On 06 Jul 2017, at 5:15 PM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > This is not a bug, it is the collision of the processing models. > > So, I think disabling it prevent user from shooting themselves in the foot. > If you are on prefork, you'd want the 6 parallel HTTP/1.1

Re: 2.4.27

Am 06.07.2017 um 19:28 schrieb Jacob Champion: Administrators using prefork who would like to switch to HTTP/2 in the future need to understand the limitations of the prefork architecture they have selected. And sure, our users can request that we implement a solution that "just works" with

Re: [RESULT] Was: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.27 as GA

Thanks Jim for the smooth 2.4.27! > Am 09.07.2017 um 20:08 schrieb Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>: > > With sufficient +1 (binding) votes and no -1 votes, and > after the required 72 waiting period, I call this vote CLOSED > and the vote PASSES. > > Will

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.27 as GA

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.27 GA. [x] +1: Good to go FWIW (after the RESULT), tested on Debian(s) 7, 8 and 9. Thanks Jim.

[RESULT] Was: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.27 as GA

With sufficient +1 (binding) votes and no -1 votes, and after the required 72 waiting period, I call this vote CLOSED and the vote PASSES. Will move the artifacts over so that mirrors can pick them up in prep for an announcement tomorrow.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.27 as GA

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.27 GA. > > [ ] +1: Good to go +1 AIX/xlc/ppc64 ssl/proxy.t is unusable on my system because openssl 1.1 clients seems to be hosed for me, even o

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.27 as GA

I compiled 2.4.27 with --with-included-apr (srclib) apr-1.6.2, apr-util-1.6.0 w/ openssl-1.1.0f (compiled manually) w/ mod_lua (w/ system libraries) without http2 under: debian 9 rhel 6.7 No issues. (+1) 2017-07-09 10:49 GMT+02:00 Steffen <i...@apachelounge.com>: > +1 Windows G

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.27 as GA

+1 Windows Good to go. On Thursday 06/07/2017 at 19:45, Jim Jagielski wrote: The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd version 2.4.27 can be found at the usual place: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.27 GA. [ ] +1: Good to go

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.27 as GA

On Jul 6, 2017, at 1:45 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd version 2.4.27 can be found at the usual place: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.27 GA. +1 Windows

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.27 as GA

[x] +1: Good to go Ubuntu 16.04 x64, test suites for httpd and mod_websocket 0.1.1 with - APR 1.5.2, APR-Util 1.5.4 - OpenSSL 1.0.2g (Debian) - event, prefork, worker - no brotli, no mod_php --Jacob

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.27 as GA

2017-07-06 19:45 GMT+02:00 Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>: > The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd > version 2.4.27 can be found at the usual place: > > http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ > > I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.27 as GA

> Am 06.07.2017 um 19:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>: > > The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd > version 2.4.27 can be found at the usual place: > > http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ > > I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apach

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.27 as GA

+1: o CentOS 6.9, 64bit o CentOS 7.3, 64bit o Ubuntu 15.10, 64bit > On Jul 6, 2017, at 1:45 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd > version 2.4.27 can be found at the usual place: > > http://httpd.apach

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.27 as GA

+1 on macOS 10.12.5 and Xcode 8.3.3. More tests to come ;) > On Jul 6, 2017, at 1:45 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd > version 2.4.27 can be found at the usual place: > > http://httpd.apache.org/de

Re: 2.4.27

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > Administrators using prefork who would like to switch to HTTP/2 in the > future need to understand the limitations of the prefork architecture they > have selected. And sure, our users can request that we implement a

[VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.27 as GA

The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd version 2.4.27 can be found at the usual place: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.27 GA. [ ] +1: Good to go [ ] +0: meh [ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why. Vote will last

Re: 2.4.27

On 07/06/2017 10:09 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: with removing mpm_prefork support for H2 you kill HTTP2 support for a lot of production setups which may consider switch to H2 in the future and for sure not rework there whole configuration but put a proxy like Trafficserver in front and forget

Re: 2.4.27

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek wrote: > On 2017-07-06 13:09, Reindl Harald wrote: >> with removing mpm_prefork support for H2 you kill HTTP2 support for a >> lot of production setups which may consider switch to H2 in the future >> and for sure not

Re: 2.4.27

On 2017-07-06 13:09, Reindl Harald wrote: > with removing mpm_prefork support for H2 you kill HTTP2 support for a > lot of production setups which may consider switch to H2 in the future > and for sure not rework there whole configuration but put a proxy like > Trafficserver in front and forget

Re: 2.4.27

in the >> > foot. If you are on prefork, you'd want the 6 parallel HTTP/1.1 >> > connections, not h2. >> > >> > Does this make sense? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Stefan >> > >> > PS. Yes, I know that one /

Re: 2.4.27

Am 06.07.2017 um 19:02 schrieb William A Rowe Jr: +1 to removing support of mom prefork. I'd prefer it still start and if configured, with an [error] level alert in the logs and simply be disabled. Server must start when module is loaded but not configured, e.g. in test framework, IMO with

Re: 2.4.27

ke sense? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Stefan > > > > PS. Yes, I know that one /could/ make parallel processes work in prefork > by placing the h2 dispatching in a parent process. If someone wants to > implement that, be my guest. > > > > > >> Am 06.0

T of 2.4.27 count down

Okey dokey... looks like we are now no longer on hold... I expect to T around 1:30pm eastern, or so. > On Jul 6, 2017, at 11:13 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > Due to the questions around lua and apr_table and the > change regarding http2 and prefork, doing a T

Re: 2.4.27

> On Jul 6, 2017, at 11:15 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: > > Hej, > > I tried to gather some discussion about this. Should have polled this mailing > list. You can read most of it here: https://github.com/icing/mod_h2/issues/142 > > tl;dr > > I had several

Re: 2.4.27 T ... holding off

On 07/06/2017 08:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Due to the questions around lua and apr_table and the change regarding http2 and prefork, doing a T of 2.4.27 right now does not seem prudent. I am holding off until we determine what to do about both "issues" IMO we are good to go wi

Re: 2.4.27

ss. If someone wants to implement > that, be my guest. > > >> Am 06.07.2017 um 16:55 schrieb Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl>: >> >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] >>> Sent: woensdag

Re: 2.4.27

>> Sent: woensdag 5 juli 2017 18:49 >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org >> Subject: Re: 2.4.27 >> >> These are just the fixes/regressions noted in CHANGES: >> >> Changes with Apache 2.4.27 >> >> *) mod_lua: Improve compatibility with Lua 5.1, 5.2 an

2.4.27 T ... holding off

Due to the questions around lua and apr_table and the change regarding http2 and prefork, doing a T of 2.4.27 right now does not seem prudent. I am holding off until we determine what to do about both "issues"

Re: 2.4.27

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Bert Huijben wrote: >> *) mod_http2: disable and give warning when mpm_prefork is >> encountered. The server will >> continue to work, but HTTP/2 will no longer be negotiated. [Stefan > Eissing] > > Can somebody point me to the reasoning

RE: 2.4.27

> -Original Message- > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] > Sent: woensdag 5 juli 2017 18:49 > To: dev@httpd.apache.org > Subject: Re: 2.4.27 > > These are just the fixes/regressions noted in CHANGES: > > Changes with Apache 2.4.27 > >

Re: 2.4.27

Thank you Jim. On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 12:48:48PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > These are just the fixes/regressions noted in CHANGES: > > Changes with Apache 2.4.27 > > *) mod_lua: Improve compatibility with Lua 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. > PR58188, PR60831, PR6

Re: 2.4.27

These are just the fixes/regressions noted in CHANGES: Changes with Apache 2.4.27 *) mod_lua: Improve compatibility with Lua 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. PR58188, PR60831, PR61245. [Rainer Jung] *) mod_http2: disable and give warning when mpm_prefork is encountered. The server

Re: 2.4.27

On 07/03/2017 04:45 AM, Eric Covener wrote: +1 +1 --Jacob

Re: 2.4.27

On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 07:33:01AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Anyone opposed to a quick T and release of 2.4.27 within > the next week? Will this be a release primarily addressing the open fast cgi regression or are the additional security concerns with 2.4.26? A quick note woul

Re: 2.4.27

+1 On Jul 3, 2017 6:33 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > Anyone opposed to a quick T and release of 2.4.27 within > the next week? >

Re: 2.4.27

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > +1 > > (read: all for it to happen) +1

Re: 2.4.27

> Am 03.07.2017 um 13:33 schrieb Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>: > > Anyone opposed to a quick T and release of 2.4.27 within > the next week? +1 (read: all for it to happen)

2.4.27

Anyone opposed to a quick T and release of 2.4.27 within the next week?