On Dec 14, 2011, at 3:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 12/14/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Let's talk about the specifics of carrying this out... the
main issues is how we tag and roll this. Recall that we don't
have any real concept of Release Candidates.
I like it that way,
On Dec 15, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
So to make sure I'm clear, what is your recommendation? Another
beta or just drop 2.4.0?
FWIW, my plan, without a clear RC charter, is to do a final
2.3.x beta (from the httpd-2.4 branch) and then a GA.
IMO, there have been too many
The 2.3.16-beta (prerelease) tarballs are available for download at test:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as 2.3.16-beta BETA and,
with luck, this IS our last beta and the next release in ~2weeks
or less will be 2.4.0 GA!!
Vote will last the
- Original Message -
On Dec 15, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
So to make sure I'm clear, what is your recommendation? Another
beta or just drop 2.4.0?
FWIW, my plan, without a clear RC charter, is to do a final
2.3.x beta (from the httpd-2.4 branch) and then a GA.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
Prutha Parikh from Qualys reported a variant on the CVE-2011-3368 attack
against certain mod_proxy/mod_rewrite configurations. A new CVE name,
CVE-2011-4317, has been assigned to this variant.
The configurations in question
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
The 2.3.16-beta (prerelease) tarballs are available for download at test:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as 2.3.16-beta BETA and,
with luck, this IS our last beta and the
- Original Message -
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
wrote:
The 2.3.16-beta (prerelease) tarballs are available for download at
test:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as 2.3.16-beta BETA and,
with
On 15 Dec 2011, at 4:48 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The 2.3.16-beta (prerelease) tarballs are available for download at test:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as 2.3.16-beta BETA and,
with luck, this IS our last beta and the next release in
- Original Message -
The 2.3.16-beta (prerelease) tarballs are available for download at
test:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as 2.3.16-beta BETA and,
with luck, this IS our last beta and the next release in ~2weeks
or less will be
- Original Message -
- Original Message -
The 2.3.16-beta (prerelease) tarballs are available for download at
test:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as 2.3.16-beta BETA and,
with luck, this IS our last beta and the next
2011/12/15 Igor Galić i.ga...@brainsware.org
apr is fine, but you'll need the apr-util 1.4.1
Thanks, using the --with-included-apr fixed the compile time errors.
Looks good on 11.10 x86.
sridhar
Builds fine on Windows 32, still the reported warnings.
Third-party modules are broken, for example:
c:\apache23\include\httpd.h(1043) : see declaration of 'conn_rec'
mod_security2.c(1254) : error C2039: 'remote_ip' : is not a member of
'conn_rec'
c:\apache23\include\httpd.h(1043) : see
Looks like the name is changed to client_ip/addr and not
remote_ip/addr
Changed to the new name in the sources from eg. mod_security and
changed also
msr-remote_port = r-connection-remote_addr-port to msr-remote_port =
r-connection-client_addr-port
Builds now, but running it crashes:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
Prutha Parikh from Qualys reported a variant on the CVE-2011-3368 attack
against certain mod_proxy/mod_rewrite configurations. A new CVE name,
On 12/15/2011 8:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 14, 2011, at 3:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 12/14/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Let's talk about the specifics of carrying this out... the
main issues is how we tag and roll this. Recall that we don't
have any real concept
On 12/15/2011 10:54 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
apr/apu versions are the versions which come with the OS distro
(1.4.5 and 1.3.12)
apr is fine, but you'll need the apr-util 1.4.1
No. apr-util 1.3.x is fine. You will lose functionality of two specific
modules, of course.
On 12/15/2011 1:18 PM, Steffen wrote:
Builds fine on Windows 32, still the reported warnings.
Third-party modules are broken
That is to be expected, this is a major/minor revision with API changes.
On 15 Dec 2011, at 9:18 PM, Steffen wrote:
Builds fine on Windows 32, still the reported warnings.
Third-party modules are broken, for example:
Module authors need to go through the list of changes at
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/developer/new_api_2_4.html to determine
whether their
18 matches
Mail list logo
