On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 13.11.2009 01:38, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
>> wrote:
>>> traw...@apache.org wrote:
Author: trawick
Date: Thu Nov 12 20:14:51 2009
New Revision: 835524
URL: http://s
On 13.11.2009 01:38, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> traw...@apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: trawick
>>> Date: Thu Nov 12 20:14:51 2009
>>> New Revision: 835524
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=835524&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> pick up r
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> traw...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: trawick
>> Date: Thu Nov 12 20:14:51 2009
>> New Revision: 835524
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=835524&view=rev
>> Log:
>> pick up r834900 and r834923 from mod_fcgid
>>
>> Follow up the
traw...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: trawick
> Date: Thu Nov 12 20:14:51 2009
> New Revision: 835524
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=835524&view=rev
> Log:
> pick up r834900 and r834923 from mod_fcgid
>
> Follow up the awk compatibility fix in r834729 by selecting the most
> suitable awk
On 17.09.2009 20:41, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> wr...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: wrowe
>> Date: Thu Sep 17 18:10:49 2009
>> New Revision: 816318
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816318&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Add the new HAVE_SYS_STAT_H entry
>
> Before I reroll, Rainer, can you verify
On Sep 17, 2009, at 3:47 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sep 17, 2009, at 2:41 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
wr...@apache.org wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Thu Sep 17 18:10:49 2009
New Revision: 816318
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816318&view=rev
Log:
Add t
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Sep 17, 2009, at 2:41 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> wr...@apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: wrowe
>>> Date: Thu Sep 17 18:10:49 2009
>>> New Revision: 816318
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816318&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Add the new HAVE_SYS_STAT_H entry
On Sep 17, 2009, at 2:41 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
wr...@apache.org wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Thu Sep 17 18:10:49 2009
New Revision: 816318
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816318&view=rev
Log:
Add the new HAVE_SYS_STAT_H entry
Before I reroll, Rainer, can you verify this clears
wr...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: wrowe
> Date: Thu Sep 17 18:10:49 2009
> New Revision: 816318
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816318&view=rev
> Log:
> Add the new HAVE_SYS_STAT_H entry
Before I reroll, Rainer, can you verify this clears up the errors
you observed?
You mention Solaris
On Sep 17, 2009, at 4:18 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
rj...@apache.org wrote:
Modified: httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/modules/ftp/ftp_internal.h
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/modules/ftp/ftp_internal.h?rev=816074&r1=816073&r2=816074&a
On 17.09.2009 10:18, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> rj...@apache.org wrote:
>>
>> Modified: httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/modules/ftp/ftp_internal.h
>> URL:
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/modules/ftp/ftp_internal.h?rev=816074&am
rj...@apache.org wrote:
>
> Modified: httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/modules/ftp/ftp_internal.h
> URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/modules/ftp/ftp_internal.h?rev=816074&r1=816073&
On 17.09.2009 08:10, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> rj...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: rjung
>> Date: Thu Sep 17 05:45:18 2009
>> New Revision: 816061
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816061&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Fix
>> - implicit declaration of function 'fchmod'
>> - 'S_I[RWX](USR|GRP|OTH)
On 17.09.2009 08:10, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> rj...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: rjung
>> Date: Thu Sep 17 05:45:18 2009
>> New Revision: 816061
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816061&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Fix
>> - implicit declaration of function 'fchmod'
>> - 'S_I[RWX](USR|GRP|OTH)
rj...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: rjung
> Date: Thu Sep 17 05:45:18 2009
> New Revision: 816061
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816061&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix
> - implicit declaration of function 'fchmod'
> - 'S_I[RWX](USR|GRP|OTH)' undeclared
Good catch, but...
> +#ifdef HAVE_FCHMOD
> +
Guenter Knauf wrote:
> sorry, didnt look closely enough, please forgive - fixed with r815577.
No bother :) Not sure it's worth rerolling for, but the other item you
pointed out might be more significant. Looking at it.
Hi,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
> Wouldn't this be
>
> if (!is_list && ((fsc->options & FTP_OPT_NLSTISLIST) || dashl)) {
>
> as there is no point otherwise? Actually we could drop the !is_list test,
> considering that forced-override isn't harmful.
sorry, didnt look closely enough, please fo
fua...@apache.org wrote:
> /* Special FTPOption that maps NLST directly to LIST */
> -if (!is_list && (fsc->options & FTP_OPT_NLSTISLIST) || dashl) {
> +if ((!is_list && (fsc->options & FTP_OPT_NLSTISLIST)) || dashl) {
> is_list = 1;
> }
Wouldn't this be
if (!is_list
Guenter Knauf wrote:
> 2) If anyone would do so he would most likely be on Win32 where you get
> a warning and you have to agree before an existing file is overwritten.
I always click 'yes' without paying much attention :)
Seriously ...
> 3) If anyone would really want to combine into httpd sour
Bill,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> what two different copies? where are these two?
>
> There were two flavors of the instructions for netware, one occurred
> before and one after the section on rebuilding docs.
whoups?
>>> It is not clear ... gmake or make? make -f NWG
Guenter Knauf wrote:
> what two different copies? where are these two?
There were two flavors of the instructions for netware, one occurred
before and one after the section on rebuilding docs.
>> It is not clear ... gmake or make? make -f NWGNUftp-makefile will or
>> will not work properly? Net
Bill,
wr...@apache.org schrieb:
> Author: wrowe
> Date: Wed Aug 26 15:44:52 2009
> New Revision: 808062
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=808062&view=rev
> Log:
> Attempt to merge two different copies of the netware build instructions.
what two different copies? where are these two?
> It
vision: 805082
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=805082&view=rev
> Log:
> Introduce ftp_escape_control_text for control channel text presentation
> --- httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/modules/ftp/ftp_util.c (original)
> +++ httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/modules/ftp/ftp_util.c Mon Aug 17 18:16
e a veto and not an objection.
If those instructions said;
cp NWGNUmodftp-makefile NWGNUmakefile
[netware steps]
that would allow you to restore to this behavior and preserve file
integrity. http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/README-FTP
explains;
To build static, or as a DSO
Paul Querna wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:56 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
> wrote:
>> j...@apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: jim
>>> Date: Fri May 22 12:49:41 2009
>>> New Revision: 777499
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=777499&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> No need (that I can see) to have the
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:56 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wrote:
> j...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: jim
>> Date: Fri May 22 12:49:41 2009
>> New Revision: 777499
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=777499&view=rev
>> Log:
>> No need (that I can see) to have the -FTP suffix here
>
> -1 Veto,
j...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: Fri May 22 12:49:41 2009
> New Revision: 777499
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=777499&view=rev
> Log:
> No need (that I can see) to have the -FTP suffix here
-1 Veto, reverting. Not even LICENSE, which would normally be just
the AL 2.0 can
On May 5, 2009, at 2:31 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Tue May 5 18:18:10 2009
New Revision: 771953
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_ftp.html.en?rev=771953&r1=771952&r2=771953&a
j...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: Tue May 5 18:18:10 2009
> New Revision: 771953
>
> URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_ftp.html.en?rev=771953&r1=7719
pending
on when I have time.
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Tom Donovan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whoops! I forgot - there's one more bug - 44653, for a total of
three bugs.
Making these 3 changes should let you build mod_ftp trunk to use
with httpd
trunk.
If you are buildin
branch
> > > that does compile and work on trunk so there is a working or atleast
> > > compiling version availble.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I entered two minor bugs & proposed patches for mod_ftp (trunk) last week
> - see bugs 44746 & 44747.
> >
> > mod_ftp trunk builds & runs OK for me on Windows with these changes.
> >
> > -tom-
> >
> >
>
>
--
~Jorge
Whoops! I forgot - there's one more bug - 44653, for a total of three bugs.
Making these 3 changes should let you build mod_ftp trunk to use with httpd
trunk.
If you are building mod_ftp to use with httpd 2.2, you only need to fix 44653.
-tom-
Tom Donovan wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen wrote
and work on trunk so there is a working or atleast
compiling version availble.
I entered two minor bugs & proposed patches for mod_ftp (trunk) last week - see
bugs 44746 & 44747.
mod_ftp trunk builds & runs OK for me on Windows with these changes.
-tom-
I'l actually not sure if mod_ftp has a separate list... so I'll send it here.
On the page it says to fetch the trunk and build it.
But the trunk doesn't build!
Adding a message saying it won't build or maybe keep a prelease branch
that does compile and work on trunk so there is a working or atlea
Hi Bill,
> Keep in mind we can't use @@LoadModules@@ though - not with a in tree
> build.
aah yes, true.
> What about @@LoadFtpModules@@ instead? If that's the preference, I don't
> mind changing the unix/win32 direction either.
fine - I've changed as you suggested.
>> how about other replacemen
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi Bill,
Any concerns with my new approach?
no real concerns - but personally I would prefer to have the load statements
inside each conf file;
also because for now we anyway distribute it separately, and once we have it
inside httpd then anyway things might go other w
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter,
see the logic in (top level) Makefile.apxs which invokes the
build/addloadexample.awk script (I recall you can rely on an awk
being present.)
Oh - we need to add a -v DSO=.nlm - I've already adjusted Makefile.apxs
accordingly.
Hi Bill,
> Add a DSO variable (default to .so for unix) so that
> it's trivial to use this script for netware.
I was first going to ask for this already, but see my other post why this isnt
really usable for now...
> -print "LoadModule " MODULE "_module " LIBPATH "/mod_" MODULE ".so";
> +
Hi Bill,
>Any concerns with my new approach?
no real concerns - but personally I would prefer to have the load statements
inside each conf file;
also because for now we anyway distribute it separately, and once we have it
inside httpd then anyway things might go other ways - f.e. I till then
ant to build or install that by default.
Bill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: fuankg
Date: Mon Dec 17 18:20:33 2007
New Revision: 605066
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=605066&view=rev
Log:
added placeholder for module load.
--- httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/docs/conf/extra/ftpd.conf (original)
+++
ibute this with mod_ftp, since we don't ship perl-framework
with httpd.
I'm thinking that httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/tests/perl-framework might move
over to httpd/test/trunk/mod_ftp-perl-framework for now. After it
has a few more eyeballs, that could just be merged into the actual
.../perl-fram
For Netware, where ./configure.apxs doesn't work...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Fri Dec 14 20:36:18 2007
New Revision: 604390
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=604390&view=rev
Log:
In-tree builds were broken because loggers aren't in the
includes path, and mod_log_config.h
Hi Bill,
>> Just a hint: last time I tested also with cURL which caused for whatever
>> reason a segfault with mod_ftp (r525888); so if possible you should also
>> try some transfers with cURL...
> Hmmm - any chance you were using IPv6?
nope - IPv4.
> The patches I committed
> today resulted from
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Just a hint: last time I tested also with cURL which caused for whatever reason
a segfault with mod_ftp (r525888); so if possible you should also try some
transfers with cURL...
Hmmm - any chance you were using IPv6? The patches I committed
today resulted from chasing d
Hi Bill,
>> then there's another issue with mod_ftp.c which I will soon look at
> Please let me know, if you say alls' well, I'll tag.
well, as you've seen I've committed a simple fix (no var declarations after
function calls), and now all compiles fine for NetWare; then loaded with my old
c
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
Who's interested in seeing a T&R and helping make the release happen?
me.
Cool. I've backed out the extra "ABOR" aliasing from trunk so we can tag
a beta, and if someone cares they can add compensation for all of the
weirder OOB behaviors that we see in the 'real wor
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
here's what makes it compile - however first hunk seems not nice...
just commited slightly modified patch.
Much prettier, thanks :)
Hi,
> here's what makes it compile - however first hunk seems not nice...
just commited slightly modified patch.
Guenter.
Hi,
> Who's interested in seeing a T&R and helping make the release happen?
me. But current code doesnt compile for Ipv4 due to improper ifdefs in
ftp_commands.c;
here's what makes it compile - however first hunk seems not nice...
--- ftp_commands.c.orig Fri Dec 07 19:38:14 2007
+++ ftp_commands.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
First question, are there testers who will test/vote on the module?
I'm game for testing. Our environment is strictly anonftp read-only
though, so I won't test the non-anon stuff. Having the thing work with
mod_cache would be absolute bliss, bu
On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:40 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=601843&view=rev
Log:
Come closer to a release by backing-up the version from Covalent-
numbering
series to an ASF numbering series, and prepare for the first GA
release
to be numbered 1.0.0.
>
> T
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=601843&view=rev
Log:
Come closer to a release by backing-up the version from Covalent-numbering
series to an ASF numbering series, and prepare for the first GA release
to be numbered 1.0.0.
>
> This means 0.9.0 is an obvious numbering schema for alpha/beta's.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Permit third numerical form of IPv6 addresses, e.g. ::n.n.n.n
> although this form will almost certainly fail proxyport equality tests.
With this patch, we now implement RFC2428, which was my only hesitation
to at least throwing out an alpha release for users to experime
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I would appreciate the active confirmation of this new parser by at
> least a second set of eyeballs. We all know how notorious parsers
> are at creating holes in the security of fresh software and code.
>
> The relevant RFC is;
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2428.txt
ic parser, all three elts are
manditory. We do not try to validate IP yet for completeness, only
that it matches digits and the appropriate IP elt seperators.
Modified:
httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/include/mod_ftp.h
httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/modules/ftp/ftp_util.c
Modified: httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/include/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Modified: httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_ftp.xml
> URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_ftp.xml?view=diff&rev=508962&
56 matches
Mail list logo
