On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 03:04:30PM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote:
Looks good to me. Thanks!
Thanks a lot for reviewing.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1487772
Gregg, thanks for confirming and sorry again about leaving the builds
broken.
Regards, Joe
On Wed, 29 May 2013 17:06:14 +0100
Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:37:14AM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote:
Oops, yes, RUN_ALL semantics are desired; the misleading API
description is my fault, sorry. (I confess I never really
understood why RUN_ALL hooks accept
Guenter, can you test if the attached compiles on Windows? It is
nothing special so it should be OK.
This redesigns the NPN API with a cheap and crappy callback interface
which doesn't rely on the actual hooks API; it is not pretty but it
avoids the inter-module hard linkage issue (which is
Hi Joe,
Two questions about this change:
- In modssl_register_npn, it appears that the code creates
new npn_advertfns and npn_negofns arrays on every call, even if they
already exist. This would seem to prevent multiple modules from
registering callbacks. Presumably this is not intended? Am I
Hi Matthew - thanks for taking a look at the patch so quickly.
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:52:10AM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote:
Two questions about this change:
- In modssl_register_npn, it appears that the code creates
new npn_advertfns and npn_negofns arrays on every call, even if they
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:52:10AM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote:
- In modssl_register_npn, it appears that the code creates
new npn_advertfns and npn_negofns arrays on every call, even if they
already exist. This would
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:37:14AM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote:
Oops, yes, RUN_ALL semantics are desired; the misleading API description is
my fault, sorry. (I confess I never really understood why RUN_ALL hooks
accept both OK and DECLINED values, but then don't actually treat them any
Hi Joe,
On 29.05.2013 18:06, Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:37:14AM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote:
Oops, yes, RUN_ALL semantics are desired; the misleading API description is
my fault, sorry. (I confess I never really understood why RUN_ALL hooks
accept both OK and DECLINED values,
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:37:14AM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote:
Oops, yes, RUN_ALL semantics are desired; the misleading API description
is
my fault, sorry. (I confess I never really understood why RUN_ALL hooks
accept
On 5/29/2013 10:52 AM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi Joe,
On 29.05.2013 18:06, Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:37:14AM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote:
Oops, yes, RUN_ALL semantics are desired; the misleading API
description is
my fault, sorry. (I confess I never really understood why
Any news on this?
Greetz
Am Samstag, 18. Mai 2013 schrieb Jim Jagielski :
Please don't submit what could be controversial reverts
over a weekend.
On May 17, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.orgjavascript:;
wrote:
Hi all,
I will revert the changes done with:
On 24 May 2013, at 2:44 PM, Mario Brandt jbl...@gmail.com wrote:
Any news on this?
Not yet, there is however a big push to get 2.4.5 out the door, which is where
the focus is lying at the moment.
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Maybe the real question is where exactly do we stand with
Windows right now...
We haven't had (complimentary) binary builds for Windows in
quite awhile and, afaict, there are really no people focusing
on Windows compatibility anymore.
For me, I wouldn't want to stunt httpd development for every
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
I will revert the changes done with:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?**view=revisionrevision=1332643http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1332643
after 72 hours if nobody is going to fix the stuff
On May 24, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Lots of us are employees of or otherwise manage to siphon money from these
companies. Make a pitch... (And some of us are happy to freelance ;) )
I'll be honest: I don't even know to to *build* for Windows,
at least with
On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:26:34 -0400
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On May 24, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Lots of us are employees of or otherwise manage to siphon money
from these companies. Make a pitch... (And some of us are happy
to freelance ;)
On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:52:05 -0400
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Maybe the real question is where exactly do we stand with
Windows right now...
We haven't had (complimentary) binary builds for Windows in
quite awhile and, afaict, there are really no people focusing
on Windows
Hi,
On 24.05.2013 14:57, Jeff Trawick wrote:
NPN is pretty important,
granted.
I promise to post a patch (or just commit if it is as trivial an issue
as it sounds) in the next week to fix the hard link between core and
ssl. Maybe I'll mess with the AP-SSL hook issue too.
cool!
How close
Hi Jim,
On 24.05.2013 14:52, Jim Jagielski wrote:
For me, I wouldn't want to stunt httpd development for every
other platform we care about simply because it breaks
Windows. But it's not just my decision, 'natch.
well, for me its no reason to just accept every code as long as it
compiles on
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 8:13 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
That fortunately is documented, with some pretty good notes in
the wiki as well that aught to percolate into the docs. That
said, documenting every Microsoft-version-quirk seems out of
scope for a general purpose
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 8:23 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Another question is where exactly do we stand with OS/X right now?
Apple HFS+ is still not supported, there exists a forced lower-case
canonicalization hack authored by Apple, but AFAICT still no progress
on
On 24.05.2013 21:37, Ben Reser wrote:
The build system should be able to compile with the major tool chains,
nobody expects to know how to work around weird autoconf, make, gcc,
etc quirks on Linux. I don't say this to be dismissive of anyones
contributions but just to point out that producing
On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:43:23 -0700
Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote:
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 8:23 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Also wondering where the OS/X download lives? It will build on any
OS/X box with a deployed toolchain, but I imagine many OS/X users
don't
On Fri, 24 May 2013 21:53:50 +0200
Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org wrote:
On 24.05.2013 21:37, Ben Reser wrote:
The build system should be able to compile with the major tool
chains, nobody expects to know how to work around weird autoconf,
make, gcc, etc quirks on Linux. I don't say this
On 5/24/2013 12:53 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
yeah ...; and from what I see our project files are already broken
even when not converted and used directly with MSVC6, f.e. when doing
a release build a bunch of files land in the debug folder, and finally
at linking stage it breaks ...
Hi all,
I will revert the changes done with:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1332643
after 72 hours if nobody is going to fix the stuff properly for Windows
since I'm tired of always copying mod_ssl over from 2.4.x branch in
order to get a working mod_ssl with trunk.
Please don't submit what could be controversial reverts
over a weekend.
On May 17, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
I will revert the changes done with:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1332643
after 72 hours if nobody is going to fix the
27 matches
Mail list logo
