I've given some thought to the desire for mod_ftp to support different
host contexts, and came up with this...
What about modifying mod_ftp USER directive to accept username in the
format of [EMAIL PROTECTED], and tokenize user as the username, host as the
http-ish Host: virtual host name? If
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
The person on the WSGI list is more or less claiming that there would
be no harm in a web server always applying chunked transfer encoding
to a response which doesn't specify a content length
Of course this person is entirely wrong if the client doesn't
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Chunking support on a response is implicit if you claim HTTP/1.1
support. You don't need to signal it with Accept-Encoding (you can, I
guess). IOW, an HTTP/1.1 client should always a expect a server may
give back chunking... -- justin
Of course, my bad.
Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman wrote:
So, as this authentication module will not ask for a username and
password, just validate against
the request's OpenPGP headers, request payload, and local gpg keyring via
gpgme. Anything you think
of I should be previewing?
It's non-trivial but is
Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
fre 2007-04-06 klockan 21:37 +0100 skrev Nick Kew:
What about modifying mod_ftp USER directive to accept username in the
format of [EMAIL PROTECTED], and tokenize user as the username, host as the
http-ish Host: virtual host name?
Sounds fair, provided the protocol
Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
So if, for example, the admin wanted to define as the alternative
separator, ftp://memyhost:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ would be a little less
ambiguous
to browser-style schemas.
Sounds reasonable. Except that it's quite impractical to use in HTML
coding and very many
You can do this today using FTPJailUser.
Trying to take this one step deeper into the vhost concept and vhost
specific permissions, though.
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Alternatively a different auth module could read and extra field that
point the user to a different root directory.
sjorge ==
David Wortham wrote:
Sorry if this isn't the primary focus of this message-list, but I have a
general question about APR and timestamps (more about apr_int64_t).
The typedef of apr_time_t is apr_int64_t. I assume this type is 64 bits
long on a 64 bit system. Is it 64 bits long on a 32bit
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
the current code fails to build for Win32 target.
This is because ftp_glob.c seems not APR-ised yet;
g_opendir() uses the DIR struct which is not available on Win32 AFAICT.
You built from modules/ftp/mod_ftp.dsp, or built with modules/ftp/Makefile.apxs?
For
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 01:38 ---
This patch changes the semantics of an existing API, so it'll randomly break
things. That's a no-no.
On what planet? We can break things in 2.3 for 2.4 or 3.0. Breakage
is good. (I had
Jakob Goldbach wrote:
Hi,
Attached is a patch which implements ap_document_root(r) as a hook.
This way modules can set document_root on the fly. (think vhost_alias)
AND get the right DOCUMENT_ROOT env. variable (as set by
ap_add_common_vars(r)).
The patch also changes ap_core_translate
Brian J. France wrote:
On Apr 23, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Jakob Goldbach wrote:
-1 on the face of things. The map_to_storage hook was added to
accomplish what you desire.
I thought map_to_storage was made to do per-dir configuration. Not
path-translation.
Actually it does both. An amusing
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Brian J. France wrote:
On Apr 23, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Jakob Goldbach wrote:
-1 on the face of things. The map_to_storage hook was added to
accomplish what you desire.
I thought map_to_storage was made to do per-dir configuration. Not
path-translation.
Actually
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm actually looking at removing the whole glob stuff
and emulating it as regexes...
Wouldn't apr_match_glob() be a better starting point? I don't really
see the point of going via regexes...
I was thinking for 2.0.x
Sander Temme wrote:
Community,
As ApacheCon draws near, perhaps we should plan some httpd releases
during the week? Between beer and bitterballen there must be time to
bat some patches around(1). Going in with the intention of, say, a TR
on Wednesday after the Tuesday Hackathon should get
Sander Temme wrote:
-- 2.2.x IIRC the initial intent was to roll 2.2.5 fairly quickly after
2.2.4, but that never happened.
you proposed or committed many extra/*.conf changes to solve win32 path
issues (essentially, quoting arguments etc). Need to just ensure that
the finished result is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: gregames
Date: Mon Apr 30 11:16:06 2007
New Revision: 533820
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=533820
Log:
check_pipeline: use AP_MODE_SPECULATIVE to check for data in the input
filters
to accomodate mod_ssl's input filter. AP_MODE_EATCRLF
Steve Hay wrote:
Has any development been done for supporting Windows Vista yet, or is it
planned by anyone soon?
Hi Steve. Do you mean are we accepting patches to solve problems on Vista?
Sure. Do you mean is there a person assigned to resolve such issues? No
(and that's true of all
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
You would be better off annotating the appropriate bug about apache 2.2
compatibility with vista and add your observations there.
Steve - I'll give you another out that might be useful.
Because at this point it seems to be less-than-bugs, more-than-gotchas
Mario Brandt wrote:
First off, the apache install tries to create the conf directories
and subsequent conf files as the install progresses.
Vista throws a fit and wont create the files, presum. due to permissions.
If you can, grab the configuration files from a different install and copy
Steve Hay wrote:
I've already overcome the difficulties of *installing* apache, much as
you describe below, and I also found that if you create a batch file to
run the MSI and then run that batch file as an administrator (using the
runas command) then things work better. I'll add this to the
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Jim Jagielski wrote:
In fact, to be honest, it would be easier still to just
update ftp_direntry_get() to use apr_fnmatch(), since we
always want to support globing. ftp_direntry_get already
does most of what makes apr_match_glob attractive in
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
This is a separate issue; we need to refactor out 90% of the subrequests
and treat these at top level requests.
OK. I was under the impression that those subrequests were made to
filter out stuff you don't have access to from the directory listings,
but I stand
Nick,
I'm moving from from a -.9 to a -1 of trunk on this because altering
the semantics of ALL of the existing ProxyPass[Reverse] directives in
one misplaced or poorly understood directive seems highly hazardous.
On any server with more than one administrator, this can be very toxic
and cause
yacsha wrote:
what?
I think Mario's post below is quite clear. I am wondering, however,
*where* he sees the error message he cites. A log? A popup command
window? An ok box? Is there additional details (a window caption or
other details?) Does it continue to happen on each reboot?
But
Mladen Turk wrote:
Just tracking the Vista problems down.
One problem is the installer. Every awk config rewrite fails
so the installation ends up without config files.
Didn't try with Administrator account directly, but with the
member of the administrators group.
I'll look as soon as my
Mladen Turk wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'll look as soon as my Longhorn beta is up and running, I'm betting
that this is all related to the permissions and 'no documents in the
application tree' ruleset.
Right, once when I added 'Full Control' to the 'Program Files'
for Users group
Nick Kew wrote:
Any chance you could outline an example to explain how my patch
would break something?
Wouldn't any $ metatoken in the substitution pattern cause chaos,
if the author of the replacement pattern didn't know that ProxyPass
was going to snarf those as envvar patterns?
Can't we do
+else if (osvi.dwMajorVersion = 6) {
+*dwVersion = OS_VERSION_VISTA;
for now (or simply 'else') so that this isn't instantly broken by the
next version, irrespective of any changes required?
Bill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: mturk
Date: Tue May 8 10:44:15
Mladen Turk wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Can't we do
+else if (osvi.dwMajorVersion = 6) {
+*dwVersion = OS_VERSION_VISTA;
for now (or simply 'else') so that this isn't instantly broken by the
next version, irrespective of any changes required?
Sure we can
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
On 5/9/07, Guenter Knauf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apache 2.0.x - has to use APR 0.9.x
Apache 2.2.x - has to use APR 1.2.x
Apache 2.3.x - has to use APR 1.3.x
is this now a mandatory relationship, or is it valid to:
build Apache 2.2.x with APR 1.3.x
This would
What would folks think about changing
if (ap_strchr_c(arg, '*') != NULL) {
/* Prevent DOS attacks, only allow one segment to have a wildcard */
int found = 0; /* The number of segments with a wildcard */
to permit multiple wildcards, but to restrict the number of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/mpm_winnt_waits.patch
is easier to read (-U8)
+1: mturk
+ +0: fielding (patch is okay, underlying code is crap)
wrowe notes: a patch should have the necessary effect with the
minimum lines
Angus Comber wrote:
Hello
I can compile Apache no problem. But when I try to debug (debug mode)
I get the error 'This application has failed to start because
libapr-1.dll was not found.
Then I see a DM0025: Error attaching to process messagebox.
Then unhandled exception in httpd.exe
While I'm working on a solution to permit cmd.exe to be launched from
a service process within Win32, I'm still struck by the inefficiency
here and feel we need to resolve the core issue.
To remind you - Revision 104019 modified server/log.c to launch the
piped logger process under a shell.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
While I'm working on a solution to permit cmd.exe to be launched from
a service process within Win32, I'm still struck by the inefficiency
here and feel we need to resolve the core issue.
FYI - Paul asked on httpd about the discussion; see
http://mail
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 is open to external resources for httpd.
[ ] External
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On 5/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I'm working on a solution to permit cmd.exe to be launched from
a service process within Win32, I'm still struck by the inefficiency
here and feel we need to resolve the core issue.
Apparently it is a good
[for infra, who is bcc'ed - three * bullets below]
Joshua Slive wrote:
Although I respect Bill's desire to have this solved apache-wide, I
actually think that this case would have been better addressed in the
closer confines of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let's just address this particular case
and
Published - ergo moving discussion from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course if in the course of this discussion, you uncover a new
edge case, feel free to move that thread back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to discuss your new discovery.
---BeginMessage---
PSNC Security Team has got the pleasure to
the 80/20 of
this entire class of issues.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Published - ergo moving discussion from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course if in the course of this discussion, you uncover a new
edge case, feel free to move that thread back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to discuss your new
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
2 weeks? The text in the reporters mail (see end of mail) speaks about
May 16th, 2006. This would be about a year (and this is mentioned as
reason for publishing) When did they actually send this to security@
and to which ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED])?
My bad,
I'm retracting my two proposed choices and going with Option #3 :) Does
anyone object to Jeff's weird proposal below? I think it's the best of
both worlds.
Speak up before I hack this in.
Bill
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On 5/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED
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) resolves any immediate urgency.
Renu Tiwari wrote:
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
Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 06:36:07PM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
I'm retracting my two proposed choices and going with Option #3 :) Does
anyone object to Jeff's weird proposal below? I think it's the best of
both worlds.
*Guessing* whether the user wants to use a shell based
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 06/01/2007 11:18 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On 6/1/07, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ahh. Should have read
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41551#c2
before which answers my question :-).
Anyway another question: From a first glance your
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
For my understanding (and a bit of devils advocate here :-)): Why do we use a
table here and not a fixed size array (HARD_SERVER_LIMIT) of ints (apr_array
of
pid_t in the 2.x case). If we keep the pids at the same index as in the
scoreboard the
Peter Somogyi wrote:
Sorry, could you point there please? (I've already spent 4 hours for google
and grep on trunk, asked expert people here but couldn't find anything.)
Do you mean the hole is in the auth way (we can use mod_auth_pam instead), or
in using fs ACLs instead of .htaccess?
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Hello Paul and Dev List,
Thanks for the reply. I checked out the links and did some code tracing
with the debugger. As one of the links pointed out, the problem is in the
block of code attached below from ap_directory_walk() in server/request.c
just a quick note to
Bill Stoddard wrote:
I'm trying to understand why mod_proxy_ajp exists and what it provides
that mod_proxy_http doesn't.
ajp13 is a binary protocol which should make the ajp13 tomcat connector
a bit more efficient than the http11 connector; an incremental
performance improvement. obtained
Croteau, Beau wrote:
I've investigated further and the problem appears to have something to do
with the mod_ssl module or a part of it's thread hooks.
In my test server I create a thread using _beginthread(...) which means when
the thread returns it should clean up after itself.
If I
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
So is there any time frame for official binaries to be released in
64-bit? the 2.2 tree seems to compile fine without any problems. I
know there is no noticeable speed improvement only a slight memory
usage increase. But there does seem to be a demand for it.
Yup.
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
One major issue is;
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/archive/1/459847/100/0/threaded
where MS's response was entirely unsatisfactory w.r.t. POSIX compliance.
Does MS ever follow standards? I know most programs don't compile in
64-bit while there is no obvious
Nick Kew wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:51:00 -0500
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed; is anyone aware of other commercial companies offering
supported Apache httpd Win32 packages?
Apart from covalent, I'd make ApacheLounge the #1 external link.
I don't know if he
Issac Goldstand wrote:
You know, I often think of offering this from my own consulting company;
but I often wonder what exactly it entails... It worries me that I'd be
inviting myself to get sued for a bug that already e4xists in Apache,
whether or not I'm able to get it subsequently fit.
---BeginMessage---
PMCs, please send this announcement to your various users@ and devs@
mailing lists, as appropriate for your particular community.
Remember, your project can only be represented at OS Summit Asia if
your community submits talks proposals:
Call for
Joe Orton wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:18:59PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:51:34PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 09:29:25PM -, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Secondly: I think this approach is unnecessarily complex. I think it's
sufficient to
As published to bugtraq.
---BeginMessage---
-
Apache Prefork MPM vulnerabilities
--
PSNC Security Team
http://security.psnc.pl/files/apache_report.pdf
1. Introduction
This small case study is a result of source code analysis of Apache httpd
server MPM
Nick Kew wrote:
Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- setuid() happens after the request has been parsed, which means
that the server runs as root up until that point. (However, on a
system with capabilities, ie. Linux 2.6, almost all superuser
privileges are dropped, so you
Jim Jagielski wrote:
So what's the word... should we back out all the pid table stuff
(from both 1.3 and 2.x) and wait for Joe to provide his
pgrp changes (including any required configure magic to detect
function existance) or what?
As you wrote...
If:
1. The required getpgid/getpgrp
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
just looked at the APR(-UTIL) 1.2.x STATUS file, but dont see there any
backport proposals
I've also few build system related (NetWare) backport proposals, where should
I put them in?
First, don't ask here, these folks wouldn't have your answer (har har)
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Well, that's the big reason I proposed this... I fear that
the async stuff will not be worked on/polished unless there
is some indication that it'll be in a released version
of Apache. My proposing a backport I'm hoping to generate
interest in that, so we can either
Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
Samba team think that this code is not something Samba-related (see
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2007-June/054186.html).
Actually, it is Apache's httpd-related. Hence it have to be hosted
somewhere in apache.org ...
The issue with hosting at Apache,
Before I SVN up to the site, some quick eyeballs on my changes r554684 and
this commit? It's been very confusing as I refer incubating people back
to this document, while pounding the +3 votes before a release ASF-wide
policy.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Mon Jul 9 08:37:38
Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Yet and still, there is the minor issue that NTLM violates RFC2616,
and as
such you might find resistance here :)
OTOH, such a module allows to choose a Linux/UNIX server for web or
proxy, even in strong Windows environment (where users
I have an odd one that is specific to mod_ftp, specific to builds against
httpd 2.2.4, and specific to AIX 5.2 compiled with xlc_r. I'm baffled,
since this backtrace makes no sense from the context of processing the
LoadModule/register_hooks sequence.
(line numbers may not precisely agree)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: mturk
Date: Tue Jul 17 02:23:30 2007
New Revision: 556860
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=556860
Log:
Comment the backport concerns for ApacheMonitor
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: mturk
Date: Wed Jul 18 01:02:21 2007
New Revision: 557188
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=557188
Log:
Simplify OS detection. We are only interested in NT
and WIN2K+ (so we can use services.msc)
Can we assume that version Vista+1 is a
Mike wrote:
Where could I find current apxs maintainter?
Apache projects don't have component-maintainers the way you might
find in bsd and similar hierarchical organizations.
The good news is, you found the right place to bring this up.
Bill
Eric Covener wrote:
On 7/22/07, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:18:49 -0400
Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to behave better w/ the patch below:
http://people.apache.org/~covener/apxs-cpp.diff
.cxx? Modules in other languages?
How about adding an
Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman wrote:
Nick Kew wrote:
It's your question that I find hard to decipher.
Yes, I'm sorry. Let me try and explain.
For example, If I read this request with my connection input filter (which I
was able to do):
=- cut here -=
POST /HTTP_OPENPGP_DECRYPT
Host:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's why I thought bringing the concept over here was a good idea.
I'm finally getting some constructive criticism!
It's an interesting idea. There have been years of work put into making
HTTP and Apache extensible for ideas just such as this one and regardless
of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
}
-else if (ap_strchr_c(encoding, ':') != NULL) {
+else if (ap_strchr_c(encoding, ',') != NULL) {
Uhm - so blowing away q val logic?
Actually, that doesn't look like a semi, that looks like a colon which
has no meaning I can think
Vegard Svanberg wrote:
In the thread Inclusion of mpm-itk into HEAD, Paul Querna
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Joshua Slive's
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) posts on
June 25th brings up a streamlined proxy approach (my words) to
separate apache processes user ids, most commonly a very much
wanted/requested
Jan van den Berg wrote:
I understand the TR is coming up.
I did notice a drop from 886-843 bugs in the bug report for 2.x over
the last week. Will there be more fixes for the 2.x branch before the
TR (I didn't see a message on the list about this).
I'm just curious because I also submitted
Gustavo Lopes wrote:
All fine for httpd-2.2.5 (VS2005 through the command line), except for
this:
T:\httpd-2.2.5\httpd-2.2.5\srclib\apr\include\apr_want.h(52): Could not
find the
file strings.h.
T:\httpd-2.2.5\httpd-2.2.5\srclib\apr\include\apr_want.h(85): Could not
find the
file
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Just a FYI: I'm planning on doing a TR of 2.0.61 tomorrow (Aug 13);
It's a retag of 2.0.60 (plus the version bump, 'natch), and a reroll
with the singular exception of bundling APR 0.9.12, instead of 0.9.14.
Just a quick note; I'll definitely find that objectionable.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Also, all the way through 1.3.37 the 1.3 drop has been available in
.tar.gz and .tar.Z compressed format, never in .tar.bz2.
By design and on purpose, I dropped .Z in favor of bz2...
I wanted similar distros available.
When this came up last time, we decided to retain
Sander Temme wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
It is mostly the same people, regardless. Bill could tag 0.9.15
and start a release vote on APR while Jim rebuilds 2.0.x based
on that tag and starts another release vote here. That way, lazy
folks like me can test
Hmmm... seems that - even though we've *repeated* this multiple times,
we have to state this again. Contents of http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
are *development* tarballs and not for any distribution.
None of our many other distributors seem to have problems with this
concept, I hope
Steffen wrote:
This is a big booom for me and some fellow webmasters. And is disappointing
me, special the style you are using. This style gives me the impression that
ASF is not happy with Apache Lounge. Even I tried to promote Apache in the
Windows world.
I think what you've done for
Tom Donovan wrote:
Maybe not threatening - but it is an eye-opener for some of us that the
Apache2 license protects released versions of Apache differently.
First, I hope I was not threatening. As I said, my appologies if it came
across that way, I'm not feeling up to par. That said, IANAL
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 02:40:39PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The bottom line is that nobody took issue with Jeff's or my comments. They
are free to do so. Colm has this time around. His points don't quite jive,
if you offered a patch set and said hey
Just a quick update; I have windows running again after creating a NUL
(/dev/null) association for the parent processes' stdout handle. It solves
a regression introduced in r483967 on Windows.
I'm somewhat puzzled, on traditional unix, NO_PIPE values for stdin/out/err
would pass no fd at all,
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Status Update:
There are issues in the current shipping version of
APR 0.9 that must be resolved before we can reroll 2.0.x.
Furthermore, there are issues in APR 1.2 that should be
fixed (although not regression related) before we redo
2.2.x... Once APR is tagged and
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Of course, releases can't be vetoed, but doing further research
indicates that Bill looks to be spot on with this issue...
The point is, this was released. Iteratively. I'm just not in a mood
to keep +1'ing releases while the code remains in this broken state.
It
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Tue Aug 21 16:21:44 2007
New Revision: 568322
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568322view=rev
Log:
This message was confusing during debugging, make it unique.
As you'd noticed, I've begun committing easily digestible pieces of
the piped
For the most part, we can and do tear down plog before we re-run the
open_logs hook. But the stderr pipe, and especially the stderr/main
server log's pipe process, really must survive the open_logs phase
(and then be torn down once new logs were successfully opened).
I implemented this in terms
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/22/2007 07:21 PM, JoshuaKramer wrote:
Howdy All,
Is there an easy way to get the apr_proc_fork mechanism to set the
SELinux context or domain of child scripts? I am using an experimental
module (mod_wsgi) to run Python scripts; the Python script is run in a
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 23, 2007, at 1:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ap_available_mutexes_string and ap_add_available_mutexes_string
cannot be data symbols when mod_ssl is built as a loadable module;
using an external string constant in a loadable module is not portable.
Wow...
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/23/2007 02:10 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Wed Aug 22 17:10:35 2007
New Revision: 568779
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568779view=rev
Log:
main core: Emit errors during the initial apr_app_initialize()
or apr_pool_create() (when
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/22/2007 01:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Tue Aug 21 16:28:32 2007
New Revision: 568326
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568326view=rev
Log:
Refactor r452431, because this should not be fatal to starting
the server if it's horribly
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
But I admit that this is harder to audit and is more likely to change at some
point of time to the usage of a pool.
More to the point, implementation of apr_ctime. The alternative of no error
at all or no timestamp seemed worse, to me. Maybe an XXX comment on trunk
to
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
The original patch was dying on win32 as-a-service, because
apr_file_open_stdout
fails without a stdout handle.
Ok, just for a non windows guy to understand: If httpd runs as a service we
usually
have no stdout handle and thus apr_file_open_stdout fails, correct?
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/23/2007 10:13 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Yeah, the conditions and assumptions on which this
is based warrant some comments in the code :)
+1
Ready to commit to the trunk/ flavor, once we have svn pre-commit hook
resolved. Joe is looking at this.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Thu Aug 23 17:54:15 2007
New Revision: 569204
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=569204view=rev
Log:
SEDFILTER has several anomolies; first, it's not SED syntax,
but more mod-rewrite like (and using the rewrite pcre parser).
Secondly,
André Malo wrote:
I'm curious what you're doing now with that information :-
Zilch - except to suggest to move it to experimental ;-) Moved on
already, have way to many other things to really address.
Bill
Joshua Slive wrote:
On 8/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm happy with a number of alternative names, mod_pcre_filter,
mod_text_filter,
mod_subst_filter, whatever, a number come to mind. The fact is,
mod_sed_filter
was nothing close to a sed implementation.
I
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Aug 23, 2007, at 7:21 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Joshua Slive wrote:
On 8/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm happy with a number of alternative names, mod_pcre_filter,
mod_text_filter,
mod_subst_filter, whatever, a number come to mind
401 - 500 of 6128 matches
Mail list logo
