> Am 14.04.2018 um 16:51 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri <drugg...@primary.net>: > > This is a pretty valid reason to consider 2.5. However, I'm not convinced > trunk has fixed the funky things referred to in this thread either.
Chicken and egg. I am willing to work for a 2.5+ https: configuration approach, if the project reaches rough consensus to go for such a release. What would be the scope for a 2.5+ that committers here feel justifies a release and the work to support it? Not a dream feature someone else has to do, but something oneself puts effort in? -Stefan > -- > Daniel Ruggeri > > On April 14, 2018 2:16:04 AM CDT, Stefan Eissing > <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote: >> >>> Am 13.04.2018 um 16:00 schrieb Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com>: >>> >>> It annoys me now that the "protocol" argument to "Listen" is really >>> quite ill-defined. "https" is not even really a protocol, more a URL >> >>> scheme, and I can't see it documented that enables SSLEngine >> anywhere. >>> We also have Protocols which does something completely different! >> >> Rest assured that you are not the only one annoyed by the many >> quirks und hoops-to-jump-through to make https: work. >> >> And, as you observed, any effort to fix things quickly runs into >> the "2.4.x regression" wall. Because someone out there has a >> combination >> of current configs that one never imagines. >> >> I think 2.4.x needs to freeze and we need to move on. >> >> Cheers, Stefan
