On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de > wrote:
> I put it on my TODO for friday, maybe I can conf/ifdef around it without > too much pain. > > Am 02.12.2015 um 23:16 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>: > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> > wrote: > >> >> Am 02.12.2015 um 21:53 schrieb William A Rowe Jr: >> >>> It seems nghttp2 1.2.1 is no longer supported? If we are missing an >>> #include, let's fix, and if we want to drop support, that's fine too, but >>> ./configure needs to reject the invalid version of nghttp2. >> >> > Note that we couldn't normally drop support for an older nghttp2, > but mod_http2 was clearly tagged as experimental, so packagers > who pick it up and enable it are responsible for keeping up. > > Reindl identifies one distribution that will be immediately burned > by picking up 2.4.18 without also bumping nghttp2 to 1.3 or later... > > This is the version shipping on FC22... >>> nghttp2.x86_64 1.2.1-1.fc22 >>> >> >> unconfirmed >> >> [builduser@buildserver:~]$ rpm -q httpd >> httpd-2.4.17-2.fc22.20151012.rh.x86_64 >> > > We are on two different pages, I'm speaking of branches/2.4.x at > 2.4.18-dev, > based on current backports. I wasn't commenting on the previous release. > > I'm glad you can look at this over the weekend. I am just fine with demanding a different version of nghttp2, or deciding on a baseline and then offering "more correct" functionality on another rev level. I expect most of dev@httpd will agree since we declared this all experimental. Off topic, can you explain why core Upgrade requests are dealt with as a 'handler', since they are protocol layer details? the "core upgrade" ''handler'' is sort of oxymoronic, since upgrade is one protocol to another in the course of a specific received request, and it the implementation appears to break all http rfcs? There is no way to incorporate the prior/initial TLS/n.n upgrade, per spec, in this current schema as implemented. I hope we can revert/fix/enhance prior to 2.4.18 'working' release? Cheers, Bill
