After going too long without any tuits, I've gotten around to properly
testing this. Looks ok, although I didn't really do anything
in-depth. - I'm going to commit and roll another RC.
Issac
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Joe Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Issac Goldstand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The apreq developers are planning a maintenance release of
libapreq1. This version primarily addresses an issue noted
with FireFox 2.0 truncating file uploads in SSL mode.
Additionally, the memory allocation algorithm for multipart
requests has been improved.
Please give the tarball at
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'd like to see new tarballs rolled soonish, given the single significant
bug that was disclosed earlier today.
Obviously most mass-vhosters are capable of compiling their own binary,
so providing the seperate-pid-table patch (whoever gets around to writing
one)
Hello,
I'd like to start a discussion about Hardware Security Module (HSM)
support for
mod_ssl. You may know that OpenSSL supports different HW engines. There
is also
support for PKCS#11 devices, a standard for communication with crypto
devices -
e.g. HSMs or Smartcards. Some HSM vendors
On 05/29/2007 08:42 PM, Andy Wang wrote:
We noticed that with mod_proxy_ajp, it's not possible to set an
indefinite timeout like was possible with mod_jk. So a long running JSP
page, for example:
% Thread.sleep(96); %
With mod_proxy_ajp timeout set to 300 will cause a 503 to be
That would definitely be a good thing.
More and more servers are using a HSM, and we only can suggest to our
customers who want to do so to use a commercial server like IIS.
Marc
On 5/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a serious issue to determine, and I've asked for a 48 hour cooldown
of wiki.apache.org/httpd/ to make a decision, and in the meantime asked that
the wiki become read-only for the conclusion of this decision.
[ ] Our httpd wiki
Paul Querna wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
We have a serious issue to determine, and I've asked for a 48 hour cooldown
of wiki.apache.org/httpd/ to make a decision, and in the meantime asked that
the wiki become read-only for the conclusion of this decision.
[XXX] Our httpd wiki is
Hi,
On 5/24/07, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a serious issue to determine, and I've asked for a 48 hour cooldown
of wiki.apache.org/httpd/ to make a decision, and in the meantime asked that
the wiki become
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hi,
On 5/24/07, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a serious issue to determine, and I've asked for a 48 hour
cooldown
of wiki.apache.org/httpd/ to make a decision, and in the meantime
asked
Joshua Slive wrote:
On 5/24/07, Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 24, 2007, at 04:23, Tony Stevenson wrote:
AskApache has had several email conversations with both myself, and
Rich. In which he was asked politely, but firmly to not use links
to content on his site.
NOTE: NOT
Hello,
I've never used this list so bear with me, I couldn't get docs-help to send
me help.Its nice to know Apache has so many helpful people willing to
discuss this situation, but why do I get the feeling that none of you have
actually read the page in question? Here is the link that is
The trouble in this particular case is that the contributor
in question writes articles that are misleading or completely
wrong, and appears to be unaware of the fact that he is being
misleading and wrong. I'm not sure if he's genuinely trying
to be helpful, or merely trying to inflate
The apreq developers are planning a maintenance release of
libapreq1. This version primarily addresses an issue noted
with FireFox 2.0 truncating file uploads in SSL mode.
Additionally, the memory allocation algorithm for multipart
requests has been improved.
Please give the tarball at
On May 29, 2007, at 5:28 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Essentially, PID tables need to move from the score to a local process
list only in the parent, and unshared. That would solve the 80/20 of
this entire class of issues.
Yes... Of course, it doesn't even need to be that extensive.
If
Marc Stern wrote:
That would definitely be a good thing.
More and more servers are using a HSM, and we only can suggest to our
customers who want to do so to use a commercial server like IIS.
Marc
mod_nss uses NSS as the crypto library instead of OpenSSL and supports
PKCS#11 drivers
On May 30, 2007, at 1:56 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'd like to see new tarballs rolled soonish, given the single
significant
bug that was disclosed earlier today.
Obviously most mass-vhosters are capable of compiling their own
binary,
so providing the seperate-pid-table patch
On May 29, 2007, at 10:56 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I volunteer to roll 1.3 when it's ready, since Sander offered to
roll 2.2
(and perhaps 2.0?)
I'll be happy to RM both.
S.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE
On 05/30/2007 08:10 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 29, 2007, at 5:28 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Essentially, PID tables need to move from the score to a local process
list only in the parent, and unshared. That would solve the 80/20 of
this entire class of issues.
Yes... Of
On Wed, 30 May 2007 11:31:02 +0200
Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the fact that we wanted to do this about 4 weeks ago anyway +1
on rolling. But we should wait for a seperate-pid-table patch,
because releasing now with the security statement out and no patch
for at least the
On May 30, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 05/30/2007 08:10 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 29, 2007, at 5:28 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Essentially, PID tables need to move from the score to a local
process
list only in the parent, and unshared. That would solve the
On May 30, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
On May 29, 2007, at 10:56 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I volunteer to roll 1.3 when it's ready, since Sander offered to
roll 2.2
(and perhaps 2.0?)
I'll be happy to RM both.
I'd like to, but my time will be sporadic enough the next
On Thu, 24 May 2007 15:15:56 -0500
Webmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I've never used this list so bear with me, I couldn't get docs-help
to send me help.Its nice to know Apache has so many helpful
people willing to discuss this situation, but why do I get the
feeling that
ons 2007-05-30 klockan 21:39 +0100 skrev Nick Kew:
It then proceeds to list HTTP status codes, and gives an errordocument
for each one. Unfortunately a number of them are bogus gibberish.
It's the gibberish Apache emits if you shoot yourself in the foot using
Redirect. Garbage in, garbage
On 05/30/2007 09:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 05/30/2007 08:10 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 29, 2007, at 5:28 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Essentially, PID tables need to move from the score to a local process
list only
On 05/30/2007 09:37 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
We also have remaining bugfixes that *should* go in.
PR#39710 is simple enough to review, and another release without
Good reminder. I just casted my vote for the backport. So lets hope
that we get the missing +1.
fixing that would be a huge WTF???
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 05/30/2007 09:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 05/30/2007 08:10 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 29, 2007, at 5:28 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Essentially, PID tables need to move from the
On May 30, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Hence my thoughts to just have local
storage for checking and keeping scoreboard as-is.
+1 on this approach.
S.
--
Sander Temme
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
On 05/31/2007 12:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The only issue... refers to the problems if we try to restructure
the scoreboard instead, which is good for 2.4/3.0 but not for 2.2, 2.0
and 1.3... Any patches that tried to address the issue using that
method would be problematic. Hence my
APACHE 2.2 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2007-05-30 17:05:31 -0400 (Wed, 30 May 2007) $]
The current version of this file can be found at:
* http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Documentation status is
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2007-05-08 19:18:57 -0400 (Tue, 08 May 2007) $]
The current version of this file can be found at:
* http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
Documentation status is
Dear All,
We need to support our application using Apache 2.0.59(64-bit) on Win
2k3 SP1 (64-bit). We tried to look for 64-bit installable for Apache
2.0.59 on apache website, but failed to find one. Is Apache 2.0.59
supported on Win64? So we have downloaded the apache 2.0.59 source code
for
32 matches
Mail list logo
