On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:24:31 -0500
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The suggestion for apr_bucket_alloc to fail more cleanly
r582228 made apr_bucket_alloc return NULL.
( I've just become aware of it. )
for apr_allocator_alloc to win a new abort_fn hook,
I'm not sure why
Takashi Sato wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:24:31 -0500
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The suggestion for apr_bucket_alloc to fail more cleanly
r582228 made apr_bucket_alloc return NULL.
( I've just become aware of it. )
So this bug can now be closed? Does it yet still and
On the apr_network_io front, things don't look as bad as I thought they
were for my immediate needs. They could (should) be better, but this could
wait until 1.4.0 or 2.0. I hadn't realized we weren't looking at an opaque
structure yet for apr_sockaddr_t. So it's (barely) tolerable :)
I'd
On May 1, 2008, at 2:57 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'd like to freeze ABI tonight and tag tomorrow. This means that if
there
is any ABI breakage in 1.3 it needs to be remedied today. This
means if
there is a function that *must* be added-can't wait-it must happen
today.
+1
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'd like to freeze ABI tonight and tag tomorrow. This means that if
there
is any ABI breakage in 1.3 it needs to be remedied today. This means if
there is a function that *must* be added-can't wait-it must happen today.
I'm not sure whether this has been covered
On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 21:25 +0100, Christopher Key wrote:
I'm not sure whether this has been covered already, and whether it needs
to go in during a major release, but is there any chance of adding
apr_int8_t and apr_uint8_t typedefs?
AFAICT, this was left off with Garrett asking for a bug
If I understand the versioning correctly, this additional cert-type
macro couldn't be added to 1.3.x after a 1.3.0 release. Would be nice
to have the glue in place so we can get HTTPD plugged into openldap
better.
http://people.apache.org/~covener/apr-trunk-ldap_tls_option_certdir.diff
On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 17:33 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Interesting thought, keep in mind the other half of the issue is the number
of times we consume generate_random_bytes ourselves from other functions,
you'll have to suggest which should be pseudo, which should be truly random
and
Christopher Key wrote:
I'm not sure whether this has been covered already, and whether it needs
to go in during a major release, but is there any chance of adding
apr_int8_t and apr_uint8_t typedefs?
Are we happy with the patch at
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Christopher Key wrote:
I'm not sure whether this has been covered already, and whether it
needs to go in during a major release, but is there any chance of
adding apr_int8_t and apr_uint8_t typedefs?
Are we happy with the patch at
Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 17:33 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Interesting thought, keep in mind the other half of the issue is the number
of times we consume generate_random_bytes ourselves from other functions,
you'll have to suggest which should be pseudo, which should
On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 18:05 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
So no, I would not change the manner that UUID's are generated to urandom.
generate_random_bytes is defined to provide the greatest entropy we can
obtain. It is not, after all, generate_psuedorandom_bytes.
OK, thanks. I'll update
On May 1, 2008, at 3:33 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Christopher Key wrote:
I'm not sure whether this has been covered already, and whether it
needs to go in during a major release, but is there any chance of
adding apr_int8_t and apr_uint8_t typedefs?
Why? The type char is defined
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 1, 2008, at 3:33 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Christopher Key wrote:
I'm not sure whether this has been covered already, and whether it needs
to go in during a major release, but is there any
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 04:18:32PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On May 1, 2008, at 3:33 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Christopher Key wrote:
I'm not sure whether this has been covered already, and whether it
needs to go in during a major release, but is there any chance of
adding
Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why? The type char is defined by the C standard to be an 8bit signed integer.
The type unsigned char is defined to be an 8bit unsigned integer. Why would
we want to add a bunch of
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:05 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As it turns out only UUID code is affected (on platforms which have no
native uuid generation function). Note that predicting the next UUID is
a serious flaw when they are used as session identifiers, etc, and
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 02:56 +0300, Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
1. Some function in APR's uuid generator falls back to rand(3) if
apr_generate_random_bytes returns an error. ...
2. E2fsprogs on which other major open source UUID generators are
supposed to be based on (at least according to
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 06:52:58PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why? The type char is defined by the C standard to be an 8bit signed
integer.
The type unsigned char is defined to
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why? The type char is defined by the C standard to be an 8bit
signed integer.
The type unsigned char is defined to be an 8bit unsigned integer.
Why would
we
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:52 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why? The type char is defined by the C standard to be an 8bit signed
integer.
The type unsigned
On May 1, 2008, at 4:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 04:18:32PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On May 1, 2008, at 3:33 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Christopher Key wrote:
I'm not sure whether this has been covered already, and whether it
needs to go in during a major
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 1, 2008, at 4:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 04:18:32PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On May 1, 2008, at 3:33 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Christopher Key wrote:
23 matches
Mail list logo
