On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:29:53 -0800
Gregg Smith wrote:
>
> Nothing political, it was from experience of years past when I was
> handed a benchmark script. I am eating crow here as I see nothing
> different when using fcgid from my test years ago. I am seeing
> different results in mod_php and no
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:39:17 +0100
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> >
> > I guess with the 2.2.23 question you meant what to include in a
> > 2.2.23 build done right now? Since we plan to have 2.2.24 soon (and
> > I guess you are going to provide Windows binaries for 23 and 24),
> > I'd say 2.2.23 is most
On 02/15/2013 01:49 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Mark Stosberg wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the response, William --
>>
>> On 02/15/2013 11:49 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:38:40 -0500
>>> Mark Stosberg wrote:
>>>
I'd like feedback o
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Mark Stosberg wrote:
>
> Thanks for the response, William --
>
> On 02/15/2013 11:49 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:38:40 -0500
>> Mark Stosberg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'd like feedback on whether the following behavior is a bug, or
>>> inten
Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 15.02.2013 18:21, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> On 15.02.2013 17:55, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>> I guess the other question is whether 2.2.24 should be tagged with the
>>> original apr-util 1.3 family, or whether we should pick up 1.5.1? And
>>> back to the older 2.2.23 source
On 2/15/2013 12:33 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:26:33 -0800
Gregg Smith wrote:
mod_fcgid alleviates both compiler/OpenSSL problems since it's
running php in it's own process true, but at the cost of speed. I'm
not sure I would consider that "optimal," but it works!
I'
Thanks for the response, William --
On 02/15/2013 11:49 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:38:40 -0500
> Mark Stosberg wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd like feedback on whether the following behavior is a bug, or
>> intentionally inconsistent.
>>
>> I was looking at the environment varia
On 15.02.2013 18:21, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 15.02.2013 17:55, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> I guess the other question is whether 2.2.24 should be tagged with the
>> original apr-util 1.3 family, or whether we should pick up 1.5.1? And
>> back to the older 2.2.23 sources, should it be the then-cu
On 15.02.2013 17:55, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> I guess the other question is whether 2.2.24 should be tagged with the
> original apr-util 1.3 family, or whether we should pick up 1.5.1? And
> back to the older 2.2.23 sources, should it be the then-current apr-util
> that was bundled in the .tar
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:06:22 +0100
Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 05.02.2013 23:12, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
> Don't know how windows handles the use of two versions of a DLL in
> the same process.
They must have different file names (not paths); e.g. a versioned dll
filename libpcre-7.dll would
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:38:40 -0500
Mark Stosberg wrote:
>
> I'd like feedback on whether the following behavior is a bug, or
> intentionally inconsistent.
>
> I was looking at the environment variables generated by this case:
>
>Browser URL: /file%3Fa=b?c=d
>
>'QUERY_STRING' => 'a=b&c
On 15.02.2013 12:38, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Some propaganda: the STATUS item "mod_proxy_ajp: Support unknown HTTP
> methods. PR54416." has two votes (mine and wrowe). The situation was
> worsened in 2.2.21 due to a fix for CVE-2011-3348. It would be nice to
> fix it in 2.2.24, fix is very similar to
I'd like feedback on whether the following behavior is a bug, or
intentionally inconsistent.
I was looking at the environment variables generated by this case:
Browser URL: /file%3Fa=b?c=d
'QUERY_STRING' => 'a=b&c=d',
'SCRIPT_URL' => '/file?a=b',
'SCRIPT_URI' => 'http://example.com/
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 05.02.2013 23:12, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> The 2.2 builds all used OpenSSL 0.9.8 and that's where I would leave
>> it, while 2.4 builds aught to use 1.0.1.
>
> +1
>
>> That, and libxml2 and lua
>> are the packages we don't bundle.
>
> T
On 05.02.2013 23:12, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> The 2.2 builds all used OpenSSL 0.9.8 and that's where I would leave
> it, while 2.4 builds aught to use 1.0.1.
+1
> That, and libxml2 and lua
> are the packages we don't bundle.
Those are additional 2.4 modules dependencies. +1 to bundle the la
On 15.02.2013 11:48, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> I plan to tag between late Friday 15 Feb eve, and Saturday. The
> remaining STATUS items only have a vote or two, or are contested
> and can't really be expected to hit this tag. It might be a bit
> late to add more to STATUS for consideration, bu
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:46:55 -0600
"William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:15:46 -0500
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > I think it's about time for 2.4.4... just a handful
> > of proposed backports are still open. I propose we
> > do a T&R the end of next week with a release the
> > wee
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 23:47:03 -0600
"William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
>
> > On 2/5/2013 2:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> > > In catching up with building 2.2.23 and getting somewhere with
> > > 2.4.3 (soon to be .24 and .4 from today's email notes), I'm left
> > > with one quandary.
[...]
> > > But
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:26:33 -0800
Gregg Smith wrote:
>
> mod_fcgid alleviates both compiler/OpenSSL problems since it's
> running php in it's own process true, but at the cost of speed. I'm
> not sure I would consider that "optimal," but it works!
I'd like to counter some FUD - do you have a s
19 matches
Mail list logo
