http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/apr-1.x-win32-nohandle.patch
FYI - that one does not apply cleanly to apr-1.2 (it's trunk)
if you want the easily applied flavor, that would be;
http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/apr-1.2-win32-nohandle.patch
The httpd patch applies with little pain.
On 09/27/2007 12:42 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
* Chunked request with too big chunks: proxy returns 413
Verdict: look at ProxyIOBufferSize
* Chunked response with too big chunks: the response is
lost completely.
Verdict: serious bug!!!
What do you mean by too big chunks?
* Retry tests:
On 09/27/2007 12:40 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Still debugging, but go ahead and commit your patch; tag it up for backports.
You already have my +1 that it's the right fix.
As the patch is part of your larger patch I wait to commit to make it easier
for others to apply the larger
Did something change in 2.2.6 regarding FakeBasicAuth ?
I always get now 'user /...: authentication failure for /path/:
Password Mismatch'.
It worked with version 2.0.59, with the same config (see below).
Does 2.2.6 it use another hash algorithm by default or so ?
In the debug log, I can find:
On ons, 2007-09-26 at 18:06 +0200, Nick Gearls wrote:
In the debug log, I can find:
Faking HTTP Basic Auth header: Authorization: Basic
L0M9QkUvU1Q9QmVsZ2l1bS9MPUJydXNzZWxzL089QXBwcm9hY2ggQmVsZ2l1bS9PVT1BcGFjaGUgdGVzdCBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZS9DTj0xMjcuMC4wLjE6cGFzc3dvcmQ=
What is this header
2007/9/27, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...] Here at [EMAIL PROTECTED] we are trying to create a better server, and
having
fun in the process. As long as we don't splinter the effort of improving
httpd server or make more work for the project members, we'll all have fun
at it.
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:51:50 +0200
Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09/27/2007 12:42 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
* Chunked request with too big chunks: proxy returns 413
Verdict: look at ProxyIOBufferSize
* Chunked response with too big chunks: the response is
lost
My Base64 decoder did not decode it :-(
Anyway, I always get 'user /...: authentication failure for /path/:
Password Mismatch', although my password file looks correct:
/C=BE/ST=Belgium/L=Brussels/O=Approach Belgium/OU=Apache test
certificate/CN=127.0.0.1:xxj31ZMTZzkVA
Does 2.2.6 it use
On Sep 26, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 09/26/2007 07:30 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
In the current log.c code, although the write-end of an initial error
logger is still held by the parent --- until the second logger
process
has kicked off. It seems someone's
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:58:01AM +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:51:50 +0200
Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09/27/2007 12:42 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
* Chunked response with too big chunks: the response is
lost completely.
Verdict: serious bug!!!
What do
Hi,
I have involved in developing a module which needs to divert the
incoming request to almost a new URL. I have changed the uri info in the
request_rec, but it seems, changes in request_rec doesn't affect the
request processing. I have implemented this in mod_proxy.
Any help to divert the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
prasanna wrote:
Any help to divert the url request to new url without browser knowledge?
mod_rewrite ?
- --
Arturo Buanzo Busleiman - Consultor Independiente en Seguridad Informatica
Servicios Ofrecidos: http://www.buanzo.com.ar/pro/
Unase a los
Regarding the threatening mail from Roy T. Fielding, :
There would not be a windows version of Apache without Bill's efforts
to keep it alive, and there won't be one in the future if windows
developers refuse to participate in the development mailing lists
HERE.
Really ? Do you mean that
On 27.09.2007, at 10:05, François wrote:
2007/9/27, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...] Here at [EMAIL PROTECTED] we are trying to create a better server,
and having
fun in the process. As long as we don't splinter the effort of
improving
httpd server or make more work for the
On tor, 2007-09-27 at 14:08 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
From the name I'd presume these are testing a long chunk-extension, not
long chunks. There is no 2616 requirement to handle arbitrarily long
chunk-extensions so it's a meaningless test, unless httpd is not failing
appropriately. (the
2007/9/27, Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Um ... No, that's not at all what's being said. Quite apart from the
history of the founding of that company ... but that's utterly irrelevant
here. Companies aren't participants in Apache projects. Individuals are.
IMHO, this kind of subtleties
Very well put Rich.
Ed Herring
AMR2 BaR Administrator
512-314-1133
Cell Phone 512-917-8480
From: Rich Bowen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:39 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: 2.2.7
On 09/26/2007 05:58 PM, Nick Gearls wrote:
My Base64 decoder did not decode it :-(
Anyway, I always get 'user /...: authentication failure for /path/:
Password Mismatch', although my password file looks correct:
/C=BE/ST=Belgium/L=Brussels/O=Approach Belgium/OU=Apache test
I tried both MD5 and SHA-1.
I'm on Windows XP/2003.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 09/26/2007 05:58 PM, Nick Gearls wrote:
My Base64 decoder did not decode it :-(
Anyway, I always get 'user /...: authentication failure for /path/:
Password Mismatch', although my password file looks correct:
Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this
whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort
he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries in a
transparent and documented way *here* and we could even distribute
them from
On 09/27/2007 05:04 PM, François wrote:
2007/9/27, Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Um ... No, that's not at all what's being said. Quite apart from the
history of the founding of that company ... but that's utterly irrelevant
here. Companies aren't participants in Apache projects.
On Sep 27, 2007, at 11:04 AM, François wrote:
2007/9/27, Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Furthermore, Apache for Windows will only continue to exist if
there is a steady flow of these volunteers. This (dev@) is the
forum in which they operate. This, also, is not a threat, but a
plain
On Sep 27, 2007 9:22 AM, Jorge Schrauwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could provide x64 binaries if there is interest in them. I usually push
them out to my site within a week of the source release.
I'm not 100% sure my method of creating them is the same as the ASF's but I
can change my way if
My method is documentated here:
http://www.blackdot.be/?inc=apache/knowledge/tutorials/x64
It is on my wiki todo list but school is keeping me busy + the weekends are
going to some stuff that is earning me money.
My method has evolved slightly but not very much just minor tweaks to make
things
Erik Abele wrote:
Sure, we all have to pay our bills but you're overlooking a difference:
Nick just replied to an inquiry offering his (and others services); he
doesn't advertise any revenue-generating site after every release etc.
etc... ;-0
Nick's comment didn't even mention he does this
Just for reference, Jorge's been instrumental in providing feedback that
has made it easier (not trivial, yet) to build for x64 on Windows. There's
actually a build log sitting off in http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/ if
anyone is interested in how noisy the 64 bit builds still are on win32,
we
On 27.09.2007, at 17:04, François wrote:
2007/9/27, Erik Abele [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this
whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort
he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries
in a
On 28.09.2007, at 01:28, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Erik Abele wrote:
Sure, we all have to pay our bills but you're overlooking a
difference:
Nick just replied to an inquiry offering his (and others
services); he
doesn't advertise any revenue-generating site after every release
etc.
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/apr-1.x-win32-nohandle.patch
FYI - that one does not apply cleanly to apr-1.2 (it's trunk)
if you want the easily applied flavor, that would be;
http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/apr-1.2-win32-nohandle.patch
The
Randy Kobes wrote:
I'm currently rebuilding everything with VC 8 (the free
version), and will report on that later.
Yea - I discovered it's quite impossible to get msvcrt-linked activestate
to cooperate with openssl compiled against msvcr80, and probably not against
httpd+mod_perl against
Sorry to jump over STATUS on this experimental change; I was seeing
growing loop as I attempted to upcase a proxied back end response of
LICENSE.txt, which repeated the opening part of the document over and
over as it grew to the full response (from 39kb up to some 105kb).
Does anyone see an
31 matches
Mail list logo
