Thx! I'd like to have Bill look over these. :) On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Mike Rumph <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Jim, > > I would like to make a suggestion that is off topic from the last couple of > replies but pertinent to a T&R of 2.4.8. > > If anyone is interested in having mod_remoteip work correctly in Apache httpd > 2.4.8, > then the following bug reports and patches might be worth considering: > > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54651 > - This is my reworking to an attachment of a patch that was first > presented over a year ago. > - This is an essential patch for mod_remoteip to correctly process > RemoteIPHeader headers that contain a list of IP addresses. > > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55972 > - This is a fix to an obvious error that I recently discovered while > studying mod_remoteip.c. > > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55962 > - This is my implementation of an idea suggested by William A. Rowe Jr. > - This one could bring a slight improvement in behavior to some unlikely > use cases. > > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55886 > - This one is analysis on the question of what should appear in the client > field on the server-status page after mod_remoteip works its magic. > > I am available to help with any further work that might be needed here. > > Thanks, > > Mike Rumph > > > > On 1/9/2014 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> "defect"? >> >> We support UDS in ProxyPass. We don't in mod_rewrite. >> Nor do we claim to. I don't think that's a "defect". >> >> If later on UDS support is *also* added to mod_rewrite, >> then good. But not having it there isn't, IMO, any >> reason to not include it where we say it is, and >> where we see it works. >> >> On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:29 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:01:58 -0500 >>> Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being >>>>> valid. I temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r) >>>>> at mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly: >>>>> >>>> Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy, >>>> and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and >>>> currently isn't supported. >>>> >>>> I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;) >>> No, it's currently not an issue, we haven't introduced that defect into >>> a release branch. >>> >>> Are you suggesting we hold off on the UDS support? Or the 2.4.8 tag? >>> Or that new defects are interesting challenges for users? >>> >> >
