Complete buildlog:
http://svwe20.itex.at/autobuilds/asf/httpd/201105160410-netware-httpd.txt.gz
=
Exporting httpd-trunk ...
Path: trunk
URL: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk
Repository Root: http://svn.apa
On 5/15/2011 11:50 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Am 16.05.2011 00:13, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
>> On 5/15/2011 9:18 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>>>
>>> any reason why you do no longer list the 2.0.x win32 binaries there?
>>
>> I don't recall removing these, perhaps they were not ready until shortly
>
Hi all,
It's above my head to dig into mod_cache in order to find out what was
intended but lastmod is apr_time_t, so NULL is invalid; possibly a typo
and lastmods was meant?
Norm
On 16/05/2011 8:13 AM, fua...@apache.org wrote:
Complete buildlog:
http://svwe20.itex.at/autobuilds/asf/httpd/20
I found this in my Spambox
Met vriendelijke groet,
Gilbert van Houten
Wijn.org
Woerden
i...@wijn.org
T 0348-483838
0622-488964
http://shop.wijn.org
<>
On 16-mei-2011, at 0:13, fua...@apache.org wrote:
Complete buildlog: http://svwe20.itex.at/autobuilds/asf/httpd/
201105152210-net
Am 16.05.2011 00:13, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 5/15/2011 9:18 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
any reason why you do no longer list the 2.0.x win32 binaries there?
I don't recall removing these, perhaps they were not ready until shortly
after 2.0.64 shipped. If you would like to fix and add Ne
Complete buildlog:
http://svwe20.itex.at/autobuilds/asf/httpd/201105152210-netware-httpd.txt.gz
=
Exporting httpd-trunk ...
Path: trunk
URL: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk
Repository Root: http://svn.apa
On 5/15/2011 9:18 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>
> any reason why you do no longer list the 2.0.x win32 binaries there?
I don't recall removing these, perhaps they were not ready until shortly
after 2.0.64 shipped. If you would like to fix and add Netware, be my
guest, and otherwise I'll look at thi
Am 15.05.2011 23:26, schrieb Graham Leggett:
On 15 May 2011, at 10:26 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
I'd like to add:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/chkdigest/
as a cross-platform tool for verifying checksums to the last section
on download.xml - any thoughts?
The simplest way to check the checks
On 15 May 2011, at 10:26 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
I'd like to add:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/chkdigest/
as a cross-platform tool for verifying checksums to the last section
on download.xml - any thoughts?
The simplest way to check the checksum is to, using the operating
system of ch
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The candidate tarballs for 2.3.12 are now available at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> I'm opening up a vote to release these as 2.3.12-beta, with
> a hope to push on for a quick GA after maybe another beta
> release in the
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi,
> I'd like to add:
> http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/chkdigest/
> as a cross-platform tool for verifying checksums to the last section on
> download.xml - any thoughts?
I wonder what checks the digest of chkdigest.pl? (or can it be more
Hi,
I'd like to add:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/chkdigest/
as a cross-platform tool for verifying checksums to the last section on
download.xml - any thoughts?
Gün.
Am 12.05.2011 18:35, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 5/12/2011 9:03 AM, fua...@apache.org wrote:
Author: fuankg
Date: Thu May 12 14:03:27 2011
New Revision: 297
Log:
Added 2.2.18 release; removed 2.2.17 release.
Guenter, what are your thoughts on including this file in the downloads.xml
packa
On 15 May 2011, at 5:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Ok, good... if we decouple mod_session_crypto (until apr-2/1.x api
is released)
and leave the rest, that would be just fine. Folks at the short
idea session
couldn't think, offhand, if it was strongly coupled to the whole
mod_session
f
On 5/15/2011 1:46 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 15 May 2011, at 1:46 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> No argument, but there are 1) minor quibbles with the apr-2 interface, and
>> 2) some significant work to replace the original with the new interface, and
>> not sure who has cycles to attack
On 15 May 2011, at 3:18 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Maybe the -A option was a bad example, then, because it allows only
access to resources that can be viewed directly, too. But ap_expr
would allow things like
On Sun, 15 May 2011, Graham Leggett wrote:
Do you think that untrusted shmtl files are not a common use case? In that
case I would tend to the "people can always switch back to the old
restricted expression syntax" solution.
I don't follow what you mean by "untrusted shtml files"?
shtml file
On 15 May 2011, at 1:22 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
So you implemented it more as a safeguard against confusion with "-
A" strings in existing expressions than as a security measure?
Yes.
Do you think that untrusted shmtl files are not a common use case?
In that case I would tend to the "peop
On Sun, 15 May 2011, Graham Leggett wrote:
The mod_include expression parser tries hard to limit what can be done. For
example, the subrequest operator -A can be switched of with a config
option.
If it makes your life easier to remove this config option please do - it was
only put there to ma
On 15 May 2011, at 12:51 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
The mod_include expression parser tries hard to limit what can be
done. For example, the subrequest operator -A can be switched of
with a config option.
If it makes your life easier to remove this config option please do -
it was only put
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
wrote:
> This patch should fix the memory leak. As I mentioned in a follow-up,
> we can discuss in Dublin or Berlin if there is a better way to solve
> this dangling filter reference...but, this will do the trick and
> should be back-portable to
Hi,
mod_include is still missing support for ap_expr. Trying to add that
support raises some questions:
The mod_include expression parser tries hard to limit what can be done.
For example, the subrequest operator -A can be switched of with a config
option. If mod_include was switched to ap_
22 matches
Mail list logo
