Guenter Knauf wrote:
the checksums are in wrong format. We need to commonly agree how to
generate checksum files. The documented format what the user expects is:
The checksums are generated by the release.sh script, and if they are in
the wrong format, then the release.sh script must be
Hello,
*) mod_proxy_scgi: Backport from trunk. [André Malo]
just in case you didn't know, there is no mod_proxy_scgi
makefile/project additions for Windows in SVN branch/tarballs
[0] Release httpd-2.2.14 as GA
Peace,
Gregg
On 24.09.2009 01:34, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
FWIW, the Python specific hosting module called mod_wsgi for Apache
implements named daemon process groups, with ability to control how
WSGI applications are delegated to which process group. This includes
being able to optionally have process group
Guenter Knauf wrote:
the checksums are in wrong format. We need to commonly agree how to
generate checksum files. The documented format what the user expects is:
# cat httpd-2.2.14.tar.bz2.md5
a5226203aaf97e5b941c41a71c112704 *httpd-2.2.14.tar.bz2
# cat httpd-2.2.14.tar.bz2.sha1
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Graham Leggett wrote:
The huge benefit of this format is that the binaries can then be checked
with same tools (option -c).
With the downside that what you propose only works on Linux.
Rather, it only works on platforms where md5sum/sha1sum is installed.
Don't confuse
On 24.09.2009 14:38, Graham Leggett wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
the checksums are in wrong format. We need to commonly agree how to
generate checksum files. The documented format what the user expects is:
# cat httpd-2.2.14.tar.bz2.md5
a5226203aaf97e5b941c41a71c112704 *httpd-2.2.14.tar.bz2
Graham Leggett schrieb:
The checksums are generated by the release.sh script, and if they are in
the wrong format, then the release.sh script must be updated to reflect
this.
sorry, didnt know; have now checked dist/roll.sh, and see the problem:
the md5 checksum file is generated with either
Hi,
Graham Leggett schrieb:
Can you point out where this is documented?
I'll try to dig that up.
The huge benefit of this format is that the binaries can then be checked
with same tools (option -c).
With the downside that what you propose only works on Linux.
huh? nope - these tools are
On 24.09.2009 15:35, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Graham Leggett wrote:
The huge benefit of this format is that the binaries can then be checked
with same tools (option -c).
With the downside that what you propose only works on Linux.
Rather, it only works on platforms
-Original Message-
From: Guenter Knauf
Sent: Donnerstag, 24. September 2009 15:48
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [vote] release httpd-2.2.14?
Graham Leggett schrieb:
The checksums are generated by the release.sh script, and
if they are in
the wrong format, then
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Can you point out where this is documented?
I'll try to dig that up.
If you can, please.
It would be better to use a common format if one does exist.
With the downside that what you propose only works on Linux.
huh? nope - these tools are available on Win32 too; and
Nick Kew n...@webthing.com writes:
On 23 Sep 2009, at 14:40, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15866
Hey, you're a committer now! Any reason you didn't just commit?
A patch will generally get more review in /trunk/ than in bugzilla
if that's
Graham Leggett schrieb:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Can you point out where this is documented?
I'll try to dig that up.
If you can, please.
I think what I meant were the pointers on the download side:
http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
see down last sentence - however its not explained how to
Guenter Knauf schrieb:
Graham Leggett schrieb:
With the downside that what you propose only works on Linux.
huh? nope - these tools are available on Win32 too; and where is a
downside at all?
Ok, now what you propose only works on Linux and Windows. *BSD? MacOSX?
Others?
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Can you point out where this is documented?
I'll try to dig that up.
If you can, please.
I think what I meant were the pointers on the download side:
http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
see down last sentence - however its not explained how to check
automatically; but
Graham Leggett schrieb:
openssl md5 offers a -verify option to verify the signature, and this
works on a wider set of platforms than md5sum does.
can you please post the commandline which automatically checks with help
of .md5 ?
thanks, Gün.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Can you point out where this is documented?
I'll try to dig that up.
If you can, please.
I think what I meant were the pointers on the download side:
http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
Hi,
Graham Leggett schrieb:
As the roll.sh script is the current authoritative mechanism for how md5
signatures are created, and roll.sh makes no guarantee as to the format
of the md5 file, all claims made to date that the signatures are in the
wrong format are therefore false.
agreed, but the
trawick wrote:
Expectations of n users trump some the behavior of a helper script used
by a few people, for our rather huge values of n.
Development on httpd is done in the open, and all our processes,
including our release processes, are transparent, and anybody is free to
improve upon our
Guenter Knauf wrote:
can you please post the commandline which automatically checks with help
of .md5 ?
md5 httpd-2.2.14.tar.bz2 | cmp - httpd-2.2.14.tar.bz2.md5
Annoyingly, openssl md5 and md5 give the same output, but with
whitespace inserted at a different place. In this case, using
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
trawick wrote:
Expectations of n users trump some the behavior of a helper script used
by a few people, for our rather huge values of n.
Development on httpd is done in the open, and all our processes,
including our
Hi,
Graham Leggett schrieb:
Now that a release is being done on a platform other than Linux,
suddenly some people are complaining[1].
Not fixing the problem, not submitting patches, just complaining.
I hope you dont target me here - I did quickly come up with a patch;
might be my patch is not
Oh, for crying out loud, get a grip folks. There is no standard
md5 file format. It isn't even a good way to validate the build
in the first place -- the signature file exists for that purpose.
If you don't like the file format, write a friggin perl script
to read whatever is there and feed it
On 09/24/2009 04:25 PM, poir...@apache.org wrote:
Author: poirier
Date: Thu Sep 24 14:25:19 2009
New Revision: 818492
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=818492view=rev
Log:
mod_cache: don't cache incomplete responses, per RFC 2616, 13.8.
PR: 15866
Modified:
Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org writes:
On 09/24/2009 04:25 PM, poir...@apache.org wrote:
+ If there's some other cache provider that has to read the whole
+ cached body to fill in the brigade, though, that would make
+ this rather expensive.
Exactly for this reason I
On 09/24/2009 10:18 PM, Dan Poirier wrote:
Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org writes:
On 09/24/2009 04:25 PM, poir...@apache.org wrote:
+ If there's some other cache provider that has to read the whole
+ cached body to fill in the brigade, though, that would make
+ this
Looks good on Mac OS 10.6.1, with a *
- gpg signature checks on tar.bz2 download
- builds with CC=gcc -arch i386*
- perl test framework passes
* Without CC=gcc -arch i386 apr failed some tests (testfmt, one
other), so I played it safe and built everything with -arch i386.
--
Dan Poirier
Guys, I think we missed one...
traw...@apache.org wrote:
Author: trawick
Date: Wed Sep 23 20:31:44 2009
New Revision: 818242
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=818242view=rev
Log:
Fix a make install DESTDIR problem handling the reference manual.
The currently-unused rule for
Hi,
here's based on input from Rainer and Rüdiger my last trial unless I get
further positive comments instead of disappointing ones ...
highlighted:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/testchecksum/testchecksums.sh.html
plaintext:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/testchecksum/testchecksums.sh.txt
Guenter Knauf wrote:
If there's acceptance, and we commit it, I will also write some lines to
explain how to use the common spreaded checksum tools to verify tarballs
which we can then either add to the download page; or better add a
separate static html page, and link to it from download
On 24.09.2009 23:11, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
here's based on input from Rainer and Rüdiger my last trial unless I get
further positive comments instead of disappointing ones ...
highlighted:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/testchecksum/testchecksums.sh.html
plaintext:
Hi,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
If there's acceptance, and we commit it, I will also write some lines to
explain how to use the common spreaded checksum tools to verify tarballs
which we can then either add to the download page; or better add a
separate static html
Graham Leggett schrieb:
Hi all,
The tarballs are (will soon be) at http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/.
This release contains fixes for the following security issues:
*) SECURITY: CVE-2009-2699 (cve.mitre.org)
Fixed in APR 1.3.9. Faulty error handling in the Solaris
pollset
On Sep 24, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
here's based on input from Rainer and Rüdiger my last trial unless
I get
further positive comments instead of disappointing ones ...
highlighted:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/testchecksum/testchecksums.sh.html
plaintext:
Hi,
Roy T. Fielding schrieb:
I get
% sh testchecksums.sh fred
Generating MD5/SHA1 checksum files ...
openssl: creating md5 checksum file for fred.tar.gz ...
openssl: creating sha1 checksum file for fred.tar.gz ...
openssl: creating md5 checksum file for fred.tar.bz2 ...
openssl:
Dan Poirier wrote:
What I'd been thinking about, but haven't implemented yet, was extending
the cache provider API (in trunk only) so we can ask the cache provider
for the size.
Your idea of a wrapper function sounds good for 2.2 though, since it
doesn't require an API change. How about
Graham Leggett wrote:
+/-1
[ ] Release httpd-2.2.14 as GA
+1 on MacOSX v10.5.8, RHEL5 and FC8.
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
odd question, but there is a request for X-Forwarded-For to apply to the
forward-proxy mode of mod_proxy_http.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/XFF_project
illustrates that Apache isn't even a proxy server [supporting this feature].
Does anyone want to take a walk through why we never enabled
38 matches
Mail list logo
