Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

On 01/18/2016 09:22 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:13 AM, Jan Kaluža > wrote: On 01/08/2016 07:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: Do we have to repeat the softmagic call if checkzmagic resolves to

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

Accept On Jan 19, 2016 4:22 AM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:13 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote: > >> On 01/08/2016 07:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> >>> Do we have to repeat the softmagic call if checkzmagic resolves to >>>

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

Clash of clans On Jan 8, 2016 8:43 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > -0.9... > > This seems a very heavy solution to a specific one-off problem. > > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 4:27 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Jan Kaluža

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

On 01/08/2016 07:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: Do we have to repeat the softmagic call if checkzmagic resolves to x-gzip/x-deflate and the internal content type needs to be deciphered? That's true. I think that Yann's patch moving the zmagic call after the softmagic call would just mean

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:13 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote: > On 01/08/2016 07:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >> Do we have to repeat the softmagic call if checkzmagic resolves to >> x-gzip/x-deflate and the internal content type needs to be deciphered? >> > > That's true. > > I

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

Hi, On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote: > > Content-Type: application/x-tar > Content-Encoding: x-gzip [] > > So, the mod_mime_magic is saying here that the body is tarball encoded by > gzip. AIUI, mod_mime_magic does indeed try to uncompress the tar.gz and

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

Do we have to repeat the softmagic call if checkzmagic resolves to x-gzip/x-deflate and the internal content type needs to be deciphered? If so, a tweak to this patch sounds like a winner, and could selectively recognize different inflation streams including bzip2 etc. On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

Looks right to me... using the address of a local var is nasty and broken and for sure will cause grief. > On Jan 8, 2016, at 2:30 PM, Christophe JAILLET > wrote: > > Hi, > > not directly related to this discussion, but while looking at mod_mime_magic, > could

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

Alternatively, it could use a global extern var and avoid the dup. > On Jan 8, 2016, at 3:00 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Looks right to me... using the address of a local var is nasty > and broken and for sure will cause grief. > >> On Jan 8, 2016, at 2:30 PM, Christophe

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

Hi, not directly related to this discussion, but while looking at mod_mime_magic, could someone have a look at: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=date=1491700 I also tried to get some feedback some time ago (http://marc.info/?l=apache-httpd-dev=137106479314698) but at that time,

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

On 01/08/2016 08:49 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote: Hi, it seems Docker client has a problem handling httpd responses [1] when you run Docker server behind httpd working as a reverse proxy. It is caused by "mod_mime_magic" adding following Content-Type and Content-Encoding to gzipped tarballs sent as a

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

-0.9... This seems a very heavy solution to a specific one-off problem. > On Jan 8, 2016, at 4:27 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote: >> >> Content-Type: application/x-tar >> Content-Encoding: x-gzip

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote: > > > > Content-Type: application/x-tar > > Content-Encoding: x-gzip > > > > So, the mod_mime_magic is saying here that the body is tarball encoded

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:17 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> >> Agreed it is configuration, but cant we simply tweak our recommended >> conf/magic >> file??? >> >> # standard unix compress >> # Enable

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

It just seems like feature-creep and YetAnotherDirective for something that is better handled some other way. As OtherBill notes, a small edit to the magic file "fixes" this. > On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Jim

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > -0.9... > > This seems a very heavy solution to a specific one-off problem. Not sure this is the patch which is heavy here... Anytime mod_mime_magic recognizes the type of a gzip file (by the magic bytes), it

Re: mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:17 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote: >> > >> > Content-Type: application/x-tar >> >

mod_mime_magic, gzipped tarballs and Docker

Hi, it seems Docker client has a problem handling httpd responses [1] when you run Docker server behind httpd working as a reverse proxy. It is caused by "mod_mime_magic" adding following Content-Type and Content-Encoding to gzipped tarballs sent as a response by Docker server: