On 2018-11-11, 3:44 PM, "Edwardo Garcia"
mailto:wdgar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 6:05 PM Barry Pollard
mailto:barry_poll...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
2/ it gives impression of immature and buggy software - this gives thoughts
towards alternatives, IRC shows many admins have n
+1 (as one of the 99.99%)
In particular: "I'd prefer frequent releases and honest changelogs."
-Original Message-
From: Niklas Edmundsson
Reply-To: "dev@httpd.apache.org"
Date: Friday, November 9, 2018 at 8:10 AM
To: "dev@httpd.apache.org"
Subject: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: 2.4.38
: Re: building 2.4.33 with apr < 1.5
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Moradhassel, Kavian
wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> When building the new 2.4.33 release on one of the RHEL-based distributions
> (Oracle Linux 7 in my case, but I think this would also happen on RHEL 7 and
> CentO
Hello,
When building the new 2.4.33 release on one of the RHEL-based distributions
(Oracle Linux 7 in my case, but I think this would also happen on RHEL 7 and
CentOS 7), I see this warning:
mod_remoteip.c: In function 'remoteip_sockaddr_compat':
mod_remoteip.c:329:5: warning: implicit declarat
Thanks! That’s exactly the kind of ballpark I was hoping to hear. ☺
From: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 1:15 PM
To: httpd
Subject: RE: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
On Jun 27, 2017 12:08 PM, "Moradhassel, K
Did this discussion result in a decision to provide a fix for the bug in 2.4.26
and plan for a 2.4.27 soon? I'm wondering if I should be waiting for a 2.4.27
in the next handful of weeks, or if I should just accept that 2.4.26 has a bug
that we need to work around...
Thanks!
-Original Me
