Proposed for backport as r1836334. Regards
Rüdiger On 07/19/2018 11:23 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote: > I can do tomorrow and make a proposal in STATUS. Looks like we are all > aligned now how to resolve this. > > Regards > > Rüdiger > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Stefan Eissing <[email protected]> >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2018 11:10 >> An: [email protected] >> Betreff: Re: ocsp_force_default initialized with UNSET in httpd 2.4.34 >> >> You'll take care of it, Rüdiger? >> >>> Am 18.07.2018 um 13:57 schrieb Ruediger Pluem <[email protected]>: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 07/18/2018 11:44 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: >>>>> Am 18.07.2018 um 11:37 schrieb Yann Ylavic <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Ruediger Pluem <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Good catch. Maybe a dirty working copy during backport? Yann? >>>>> >>>>> Actually the change was in the proposed patch: >>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/patches/2.4.x/ssl-ocsp- >> enable-leaf.patch >>>>> A subtle difference between trunk and 2.4.x, around the change... >>>> >>>> Hmm, so I had the dirty working dir when creating the patch? I do not >> remember messing with that setting, but obviously I was mistaken in >> doing it. >>>> >>>> So, patch 1 it is then, Rainer? >>>> >>> >>> I changed my mind :-) Let's backport r1555631 from trunk which is more >> or less patch 2. So we have aligned trunk and >>> 2.4.x here. r1555631 does not apply clean though, because r1826995, >> r1827001 are already backported, but this is fixable. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Rüdiger >
