Jim Jagielski wrote:
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
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 06:48:43PM +0300, Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
Wouldn't adding a new function be more suitable?
http://apr.apache.org/docs/apr/1.2/group__apr__random.html:
apr_generate_random_bytes says it will Generate random bytes. This
says nothing about the pseudo- vs. true-
Issac Goldstand wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
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
Joe Orton wrote:
In retrospect, I don't think it's a good idea for APR to venture further
into this domain without a thorough review of what different randomness
sources are available on different OSes, what are the common
denominators, etc. The previous effort at providing something more
Was this done? The reason I ask is that it appears svn write
is down again but I want to update the notes/license info
regarding apr_cvt() in apr_snprintf.c...
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Was this done? The reason I ask is that it appears svn write
is down again but I want to update the notes/license info
regarding apr_cvt() in apr_snprintf.c...
Not yet; I'll specifically wait for your commit(s).
Joe Orton wrote:
Given the lack of such a guarantee, nobody would presume the data is
suitable for cryptographic use, e.g. private keys. So I think it's
right to make it fast at the expense of strength, and it should prefer
/dev/urandom over /dev/random. (In Fedora we've been building APR
On May 2, 2008, at 11:01 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Was this done? The reason I ask is that it appears svn write
is down again but I want to update the notes/license info
regarding apr_cvt() in apr_snprintf.c...
Not yet; I'll specifically wait for your commit(s).
On May 2, 2008, at 8:07 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Christopher Key wrote:
The reason for wanting the (u)int8 types was primarily for
readabilty, i.e. to distinguish between whether you are
manipulating character data or numerical data. Moreover, there
are times where you
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
However, I do -1 (veto) the addition of
[...] and
+else
+# no known value for 32 bit type
+AC_ERROR([could not detect a 32-bit integer type])
for reasons already stated. APR may add meaningless cruft if it likes,
but I will not have the httpd platforms reduced
Remaining serious bug for solaris in apr_poll;
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43000
this seems to be consistent with any number of issues that have
been reported for httpd, etc. Would someone with more free cycles
than I please look at Henry Jen's commentary and patch?
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Remaining serious bug for solaris in apr_poll;
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43000
this seems to be consistent with any number of issues that have
been reported for httpd, etc. Would someone with more free cycles
than I please look at Henry
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42889
which must be committed?
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20540
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20542
I'm a little disturbed that the 1.3.0 discussion has been going on for
about 2.5 weeks, and I
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42841
includes an apparently solid patch from Tom Donovan for the reslist acquire
function - would someone who is reslist savvy please review?
No APIs are harmed in the associated patch - don't let the docs
clarifications distract you.
Bill
Chris Taylor seems to have identified a significant bug here, but some
effort at comparing different OS's man pages is probably worthwhile before
we accept the patch on it's face;
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44903
Would someone on a non-traditional, inverted machine and
Graham and Eric,
please untangle
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41352
for us? This bug commentary no longer makes sense :(
Bill
This closes a long standing confusion on some code in apr_snprintf()
(and ap_snprintf() in apache-1.3). The comments indicate that the
apr_cvt() implementation was pulled from GNU libc. However, the
actual origin of the code is from UNIX V7 (at least... it is also
possible that this was
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:07 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
We discussed in this[1] thread has discussed the problem, patches were
sent, a bug[2] was filled.
Was this issue fixed and I missed the commit, or was it forgotten :) ?
[1]
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
please untangle
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41352
for us? This bug commentary no longer makes sense :(
Comment #3 means ignore comment #2.
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42889
which must be committed?
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20540
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20542
I'm a little disturbed that the 1.3.0 discussion has been going
Graham Leggett wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
please untangle
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41352
for us? This bug commentary no longer makes sense :(
Comment #3 means ignore comment #2.
Which leaves the status of the attached patches as *WHAT*? Invalid?
then
please take a look at
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44186
and
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44587
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
please take a look at
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44186
and
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44587
These patches look good.
nitpick, the following functions in apr_memcache.c do not need underscores on
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Taylor seems to have identified a significant bug here, but some
effort at comparing different OS's man pages is probably worthwhile before
we accept the patch on it's face;
25 matches
Mail list logo