Dear All,
is this correct behaviour of the apr_file_puts function which prints a
bla-bla-bla \n string to file _without_ conversion of the \n to \r\n
sequence under Windows ans OS/2 ?
Regards,
Yura Vishnevskiy
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Yuri V. Vishnevskiy
yuri.vishnevs...@gmail.com wrote:
is this correct behaviour of the apr_file_puts function which prints a
bla-bla-bla \n string to file _without_ conversion of the \n to \r\n
sequence under Windows ans OS/2 ?
If the file is opened in text
is this correct behaviour of the apr_file_puts function which prints a
bla-bla-bla \n string to file _without_ conversion of the \n to \r\n
sequence under Windows ans OS/2 ?
If the file is opened in text mode, not binary mode, then the o/s library
should be handling the newline to CRLF
Hi,
I facing some difficulties to use apr api on visual studio.
Please guide me or sent me any pointer.
Thanks,
Pradipta
j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Thu Sep 10 12:00:50 2009
New Revision: 813390
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=813390view=rev
Log:
Some proposed backports
1.4 and trunk and even 1.3 are C-T-R. There is backwards compatibility
hard versioning rules on 1.4 and 1.3; 1.4 allows
Just wanted to have a paper trail for the ctr
On Sep 10, 2009, at 11:34 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Thu Sep 10 12:00:50 2009
New Revision: 813390
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=813390view=rev
Log:
Some proposed backports
1.4 and trunk and
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Just wanted to have a paper trail for the ctr
That sounds like inflicting unnecessary 'process' on the project :)
APR certainly differs from httpd significantly, in that backports
to the supported/shipped branch are almost always clear-cut choices
dictated by the versioning
Hi,
I suppose Bill will give some more insight into this
cause it's only win related.
I came into edge case where utf8_to_unicode_path fails
for apr_stat on NT pipes.
NT pipes have maximum name length of 256 chars, and
utf8_to_unicode_path starts mangling paths longer
then 248 chars.
code from
David Taveras wrote:
I run apache 2.2.9 apache 2.2.11 both with apr-1.2.11p2
apr-util-1.2.10p2
According to the CVE at
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-2412 only 0.9.x
and 1.3.x are affected . Could anybody confirm that this is so? If
not.. how bad is this
