Re: Apache calls initialize module twice

2003-11-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Nov 13, 2003, at 2:43 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: ap_mpm_query(), implemented by each MPM, would need some help from core to determine which pass of the pre/post-config hook it is, since that is out of the MPM's domain. It seems to me that the proposed patch (for modules) elegantly solves a

Re: consider reopening 1.3

2003-11-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Nov 16, 2003, at 4:12 AM, Glenn wrote: - lack of clear leadership and even basic direction scratch-an-itch development is fine and good, but not in total chaos Umm... this *is* the ASF. It's *developer* driven. The direction is defined by the developers. - cathedral development it appears

Re: consider reopening 1.3

2003-11-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Nov 16, 2003, at 2:23 PM, Glenn wrote: I don't expect any of the current Apache developers would be interested in this. But plenty of people join the development community over time (see previous comments) and theoretically the opinions could change. Well, I am interested. And some others

Re: consider reopening 1.3

2003-11-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Nov 16, 2003, at 3:57 PM, Glenn wrote: Oh, how about my (effectively) 2-line patch which adds vhost to the error log, which I have posted to this list NO LESS THAN 6 TIMES and spaced out over the past 6 MONTHS in three different formats, using a global, expanding server_rec, and with #defines.

Re: consider reopening 1.3

2003-11-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
Glenn wrote: On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 03:46:26PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: Why 1.4? What will 1.4 have that 1.3 does not? Or do you mean reopening 1.3 implies that it becomes 1.4? Only semantics. .4 is even, so stable; .5 is development and less stable Personally, I've never liked

Re: consider reopening 1.3

2003-11-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
Peter J. Cranstone wrote: What would 1.4 have or be for that to happen? You have 12 million users - shouldn't be hard to simply ask them what they would like to see. Postal fees will be hell... -- === Jim

Re: consider reopening 1.3

2003-11-17 Thread Jim Jagielski
... -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3

2003-11-17 Thread Jim Jagielski
?? -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3

2003-11-17 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Nov 17, 2003, at 1:31 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote: Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:01:46AM -0700, Peter J. Cranstone wrote: Oh yes - forgot about v6... that's a must have for Apache. Is it available for 1.x? If not that would be the first feature to add. The KAME project has

Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3

2003-11-17 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Nov 17, 2003, at 2:22 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote: In this economic environment (and perhaps this will turn out to be generally true from now on), companies are not making investments in IT unless they can get a proven and almost immediate return on that investment. Making the jump to Apache 2.0

Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3

2003-11-17 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Nov 17, 2003, at 3:17 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: As someone working in a company like that, I can tell you definitively that this is not true. At least not here at the biggest web company in the world. -Rasmus Well, I can certainly say that with respect to many, many of the clients I've

Re: 2.0.48 build on MacOS X 10.3 ?

2003-11-20 Thread Jim Jagielski
,__text) /usr/lib/libSystem.dylib(regfree.So) definition of _regfree These are (should be) non-fatal... What gcc are you using ('gcc_select')? -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com

Re: 2.0.48 build on MacOS X 10.3 ?

2003-11-20 Thread Jim Jagielski
Henri Gomez wrote: These are (should be) non-fatal... What gcc are you using ('gcc_select')? stock gcc 3.3 which came with devtools Did you confirm that 'httpd' isn't, in fact, created? -- === Jim

[PATCH] 1.3: Add %X as alias for %c in LogFormat

2003-11-20 Thread Jim Jagielski
', log_connection_status, 0 +'v', log_virtual_host, 0 +}, +{ +'V', log_server_name, 0 +}, +{ +'X', log_connection_status, 0 }, { '\0' -- === Jim Jagielski

Re: [PATCH] 1.3: Add %X as alias for %c in LogFormat

2003-11-20 Thread Jim Jagielski
there ;) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

Re: [PATCH] 1.3: Add %X as alias for %c in LogFormat

2003-11-20 Thread Jim Jagielski
... It was my intent to keep existing configs still valid. Adding %X enabled that. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little

Re: UseCanonicalName Off *surprise*

2003-12-19 Thread Jim Jagielski
1.3.29-dev actually changes the determination of the port value with UCN off in effect. The big question is if the client does NOT send a Host header, and UCN is Off, should the port be the port number used in the connection socket OR should we use whatever Port is set to... The current

Re: UseCanonicalName Off *surprise*

2003-12-19 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Dec 19, 2003, at 1:35 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Let me be clear (on the 1.3 side)... one expects that given; UseCanonicalName Off Listen 8080 Port 80 an inbound request with a Host header of foo:80 would respond with the redirection http://foo:80/ It does not. The Listen port again

Re: UseCanonicalName Off *surprise*

2003-12-19 Thread Jim Jagielski
?? -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

FNM_PERIOD, etc...

2004-01-08 Thread Jim Jagielski
We're being sloppy with these... Shouldn't all FNM_* in httpd be using the APR versions? Just grepping for FNM_PERIOD... ./modules/generators/mod_autoindex.c: FNM_NOESCAPE | FNM_PERIOD) ./modules/generators/mod_autoindex.c:

[PATCH] Bugz 24483 for 1.3

2004-01-12 Thread Jim Jagielski
Patch to close out Bugz 24483 for 1.3.29... basically a backport of the 2.0 patch in the PR. Index: src/modules/standard/mod_usertrack.c === RCS file: /home/cvs/apache-1.3/src/modules/standard/mod_usertrack.c,v retrieving revision

Re: [1.3 PROPOSAL] call prctl(PR_SET_DUMPABLE)

2004-01-12 Thread Jim Jagielski
reason and/or there is a chance of picking up some +1s provided that the patch is reasonable -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty

Re: [1.3 PATCH] log error if returning 500

2004-01-12 Thread Jim Jagielski
+1 On Jan 12, 2004, at 11:42 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: 2.x already does this Index: src/modules/standard/mod_mime_magic.c === RCS file: /home/cvs/apache-1.3/src/modules/standard/mod_mime_magic.c,v retrieving revision 1.51 diff -u

Proposal: Allow ServerTokens to specify Server header completely

2004-01-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
I'd like to get some sort of feedback concerning the idea of having ServerTokens not only adjust what Apache sends in the Server header, but also allow the directive to fully set that info. For example: ServerTokens Set Aporche/3.5 would cause Apache to send Aporche/3.5 as the Server header. Some

Re: Proposal: Allow ServerTokens to specify Server header completely

2004-01-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
already don't really honor it all that much (what other rationale is there for ServerTokens other than obfuscation? :) ). -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society

Re: Proposal: Allow ServerTokens to specify Server header completely

2004-01-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
. :) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

Re: Proposal: Allow ServerTokens to specify Server header completely

2004-01-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
Lars Eilebrecht wrote: According to Jim Jagielski: I didn't propose this to create (yet another) heated discussion, too late ;) simply to suggest that we take ServerTokens to its logical conclusion based on some requests I've seen. :) Sorry, but I don't see this as the logical

Re: Proposal: Allow ServerTokens to specify Server header completely

2004-01-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
Mads Toftum wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 09:35:15AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: Without a doubt. Look at how many exploits grep on not only the name of the server but also the version. So it is ok to be vulnerable - as long as it isn't obvious? Of course

Re: [1.3 PATCH] issue prctl(PR_SET_DUMPABLE) where available

2004-01-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
+1 On Jan 13, 2004, at 9:54 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: Rather than using multiple symbols (HAVE_SYS_PRCTL_H, HAVE_PRCTL), which would add to the CFLAGS, there is a single symbol HAVE_SET_DUMPABLE which is defined via CFLAGS if all prerequisites are met.

[OT] Incoming FAX to Email gateway s/w

2004-01-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
Offlist, please contact me regarding suggestions on various (incoming) FAX-to-Email solutions. Not the normal send a FAX by sending an Email but receive an incoming FAX, image-ize it (TIFF, JPG, whatever) and send via Email to someone. tia.

Re: [1.3 PATCH] a different take on forensics

2004-01-22 Thread Jim Jagielski
Anyway +1 (untested) for the core patch. +1 (tested) on the core-patch... I'm mulling over whether it should be included by default or, at least, runtime configurable :) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src/modules/standard mod_usertrack.c

2004-01-29 Thread Jim Jagielski
. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-18 Thread Jim Jagielski
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish. Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-18 Thread Jim Jagielski
We have a showstopper, don't we? On Feb 18, 2004, at 12:34 PM, Sander Striker wrote: On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish. Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but also to coincide with the changeover to AL

Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-18 Thread Jim Jagielski
-- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-19 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Feb 18, 2004, at 1:19 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish. Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0. one question: who would support putting the 1.3 versions

Re: apr/apr-util python dependence

2004-02-20 Thread Jim Jagielski
system tried to be as LCD (lowest common denominator) as possible. If we require all this extra stuff, then, at least to my mind, it means that we need to rethink not just patch. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL

Re: apr/apr-util python dependence

2004-02-20 Thread Jim Jagielski
That the solution used was done with no thought of impact to developers. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order

Re: [PATCH] SSL not sending close alert message

2004-02-24 Thread Jim Jagielski
-- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

Re: Bug? in 1.3 htdigest?

2004-03-08 Thread Jim Jagielski
+1 On Mar 2, 2004, at 10:41 AM, Thom May wrote: * Thom May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : Hey guys, just wondering why we use system(copy...)/system(cp...) in htdigest in 1.3, when the netware option seems to be more secure? The patch attached just rips out the ifdef and uses the netware code

Time for 1.3.30?

2004-03-09 Thread Jim Jagielski
? -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

Re: [PROPOSAL] Move httpd to the subversion repository

2004-03-15 Thread Jim Jagielski
I would +1 moving over after release of 2.0.49 and 1.3.30... :) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order

Re: 2.0.49 (rc3) tarballs available, WAS: Re: 2.0.49 (rc2) tarballs

2004-03-17 Thread Jim Jagielski
good. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

fix_hostname() in 1.3.30-dev broken

2004-03-18 Thread Jim Jagielski
Ugg... fix_hostname() in 1.3.30-dev (and previous) are broken such that it does *not* update parsed_uri with the port and port_str value from the Host header. This means that with a request like: % telnet localhost GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: foo: that the '' port value from the

Re: fix_hostname() in 1.3.30-dev broken

2004-03-22 Thread Jim Jagielski
when UseCanonicalName is Off that this is an issue, and the SysAdmin no doubt has reasons for it :) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little

[PATCH] Re: fix_hostname() in 1.3.30-dev broken

2004-03-24 Thread Jim Jagielski
Whatever uses ap_get_server_port() would use the Port number included in the Host: header. This includes mod_vhost_alias, mod_proxy, mod_rewrite and Apache itself when it creates self- referential URLs (hence UseCanonicalName). Note that it's ONLY when UseCanonicalName is Off that this is an

Bugz: 27023

2004-03-24 Thread Jim Jagielski
The core issue with this bug is that we trample on any pre-existing Set-Cookie headers by willy-nilly overwriting our response header with that generated by the origin server. Should we honor existing Set-Cookie headers, or is that non-compliant?

Apache 1.3 - One more item for release

2004-03-29 Thread Jim Jagielski
I want to resolve the below item before we release... I've talked it over with Roy, and we both agree some sort of more intelligent overlaying is required, although treating Set-Cookie as a special case for now is fine... Note that 2.x also seems affected by this and should be resolved.

Re: Apache 1.3 - One more item for release

2004-03-29 Thread Jim Jagielski
I'm hoping to carve out some time tomorrow... but if someone else has some free time :) On Mar 29, 2004, at 3:50 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: I want to resolve the below item before we release... I've talked it over with Roy, and we both agree some sort of more intelligent

1.3.30 ...

2004-04-02 Thread Jim Jagielski
I've removed the last SHOWSTOPPER for the 1.3.30 release. I think we're ready for 1.3.30... anyone disagree?

Apache 1.3.30 release candidate tarball available for testing

2004-04-12 Thread Jim Jagielski
At: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Please check it out in anticipation for a release tomorrow or so.

Re: Any 1.3.30 tarball feeback??

2004-04-12 Thread Jim Jagielski
be minimal and limited to Win people. On Apr 12, 2004, at 3:06 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: At 12:33 PM 4/12/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote: Any comments on the 1.3.30 release candidate tarball? The mod_rewrite.dsw was patched to find the ws2_32.lib required when we modified rewrite. Unfortunately

1.3.3x digest/nonce issue

2004-04-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
There is a known bug/issue in the current implementation of mod_digest regarding the nonce. I am looking to have this plugged for our next 1.3 release. There are 2 suggested patches, which I will post under separate Emails. I will also adjust STATUS to reflect these 2 potential patches. PLEASE

[PATCH] Candidate 1: Re: 1.3.3x digest/nonce issue

2004-04-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Apr 13, 2004, at 11:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: There is a known bug/issue in the current implementation of mod_digest regarding the nonce. I am looking to have this plugged for our next 1.3 release. There are 2 suggested patches, which I will post under separate Emails. I will also adjust

[PATCH] Candidate 2: Re: 1.3.3x digest/nonce issue

2004-04-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Apr 13, 2004, at 11:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: There is a known bug/issue in the current implementation of mod_digest regarding the nonce. I am looking to have this plugged for our next 1.3 release. There are 2 suggested patches, which I will post under separate Emails. I will also adjust

Re: [PATCH] Candidate 1: Re: 1.3.3x digest/nonce issue

2004-04-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
get my tax returns finished and in the mail). It looks like the other suggested patch incorporates some of your comments, but not all. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com

Re: [PATCH] Candidate 1: Re: 1.3.3x digest/nonce issue

2004-04-14 Thread Jim Jagielski
... -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

Re: [PATCH] Candidate 1: Re: 1.3.3x digest/nonce issue

2004-04-14 Thread Jim Jagielski
!) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

[PATCH 1.3.30/31] Re: 1.3.3x digest/nonce issue

2004-04-14 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Apr 13, 2004, at 11:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: There is a known bug/issue in the current implementation of mod_digest regarding the nonce. I am looking to have this plugged for our next 1.3 release. There are 2 suggested patches, which I will post under separate Emails. I will also adjust

Re: [PATCH] Candidate 1: Re: 1.3.3x digest/nonce issue

2004-04-14 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Apr 14, 2004, at 1:57 PM, Ben Laurie wrote: Correct - it is a nonce-seed. AuthDigestNonce -- AuthDigestSeed or AuthDigestNonceSeed ? It should be identical across an XS realm - but different from realm to realm. If one realm is used on multiple servers (e.g. non sticky loadbalancing)

Re: [PATCH] Candidate 1: Re: 1.3.3x digest/nonce issue

2004-04-14 Thread Jim Jagielski
I'd like to propose that I simply commit the revised patch to CVS for us to poke around with/test/review, etc... My guess is that we'll ship with something similar and this will provide, at least, a nice framework.

Re: cvs commit: httpd-docs-1.3/htdocs/manual/mod mod_digest.html

2004-04-15 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Apr 15, 2004, at 3:53 PM, Geoffrey Young wrote: +(December 2003), most major browsers support digest +authentication. However, the only major browsers which support +the old digest authentication format are a href=http://www.opera.com/;Opera 4.0/a, +a

Re: [PATCH] Candidate 1: Re: 1.3.3x digest/nonce issue

2004-04-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
I'm suggesting changing the static string WHAT_THE_HECK_GOES_HERE? in ap_auth_nonce() to ap_get_server_name()... comments?

Re: [PATCH] Candidate 1: Re: 1.3.3x digest/nonce issue

2004-04-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

Re: [PATCH] Candidate 1: Re: 1.3.3x digest/nonce issue

2004-04-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Apr 16, 2004, at 9:39 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Jeff Trawick wrote: Anybody want to think about what happens if we're so unlucky that the ap_user_name or ap_pid_fname string with '\0' is smaller than sizeof(unsigned long) and just happens to be allocated at the end of a page? Unlikely

1.3.31 short term schedule

2004-04-17 Thread Jim Jagielski
on it. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

Re: Request for feedback - UseCanonicalPort

2004-05-12 Thread Jim Jagielski
On May 11, 2004, at 6:18 PM, Brad Nicholes wrote: +1 to Bill's comment. I don't quite understand what is confusing and why we would need UseCanonicalPort. IMO, all that really needs to be done is to fix UseCanonicalName so that it works according to the documentation. As was explained

Re: Request for feedback - UseCanonicalPort

2004-05-12 Thread Jim Jagielski
Do you mean that 2.0 now works correctly? In that case maybe the short-term is to use the 2.0 method for both 1.3 and 2.1, until we can figure out a better method... I think the 2.0 method is likely more correct than the 1.3/2.1 one, at least as a default implementation. On May 12, 2004, at 1:13

Re: Request for feedback - UseCanonicalPort

2004-05-12 Thread Jim Jagielski
What I've done, for the 1.3 case, is make honoring the physical port number (ala 2.1) a compile-time flag... This should hold us off until we figure out a better way to do this, so it may get backed out when that happens. In the meantime, 1.3.32-dev will operate as does 2.0, which is, I think, the

Re: Request for feedback - UseCanonicalPort

2004-05-12 Thread Jim Jagielski
Well, at least with 2.0, that's the way ServerName is documented... nd is right... the actual physical port can never be, afaik, 0, so wherever that is in the logic path, that's the final end :) But on thinking it even more deeply, having Apache return the physical port can always be done via

[PATCH 1.3] New UseCanonicalName option

2004-05-11 Thread Jim Jagielski
be 'on', 'off', 'off20x' or 'dns'; } return NULL; } -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order

Re: [PATCH 1.3] New UseCanonicalName option

2004-05-11 Thread Jim Jagielski
On May 11, 2004, at 12:28 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: One way of handling the diffs between how 1.3 and 2.0 handles UCN Off. *) SECURITY: CAN-2003-0987 (cve.mitre.org) Index: src/include/ap_mmn.h === RCS file: /home/cvs/apache-1.3

Request for feedback - UseCanonicalPort

2004-05-11 Thread Jim Jagielski
IMO, we need more control over the port number that Apache determines to be canonical beyond that which is provided by UseCanonicalName, simply because there are so many options and permutations which are possible and applicable for different environments. To that end, instead of overloading

Status of 1.3.31...

2004-05-10 Thread Jim Jagielski
Looking for negative (do-not-release) feedback for the 1.3.31 RC tarballs...

TR of 1.3.31

2004-04-26 Thread Jim Jagielski
I plan to TR 1.3.31 most likely tomorrow... speak now or forever hold your peace.

Re: TR of 1.3.31

2004-04-26 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Apr 26, 2004, at 1:42 PM, Geoffrey Young wrote: I don't think the mod_digest.html stuff I sent was integrated, even though it seemed people were happy with the wording. but I didn't want to just commit it until the RM officially said so :) not that these docs are all that critical of an

Re: 1.3.31?

2004-04-28 Thread Jim Jagielski
The TR of 1.3.31 will be done within the next day or 2 with a formal release likely early next week. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little

Re: mod_proxy distinguish cookies?

2004-05-05 Thread Jim Jagielski
. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

2004-05-07 Thread Jim Jagielski
Via: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ I'd like to announce and release the 11th.

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

2004-05-07 Thread Jim Jagielski
, at 8:15 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Via: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ I'd like to announce and release the 11th. Except Slashdot beat you to the punch: http://apache.slashdot.org/. S. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.temme.net/sander/ PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A

UseCanonicalName Off

2004-05-07 Thread Jim Jagielski
In the 2.1 STATUS file we see: * When UseCanonicalName is set to OFF, allow ap_get_server_port to check r-connection-local_addr-port before defaulting to server-port or ap_default_port() This is, in fact, the behavior in 1.3.31... The idea being that with UseCanonicalName Off, we

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

2004-05-07 Thread Jim Jagielski
turning down would-be beta-testers! Please put the tarballs back up, and please ignore the press. -aaron On May 7, 2004, at 12:28 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I have made the tarballs unavailable from the below URL. People should contact me directly to obtain the correct URL... Sander

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

2004-05-08 Thread Jim Jagielski
the viability of the tarball, not the code). -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve

Move apache-1.3 to Subversion

2004-05-08 Thread Jim Jagielski
I'd like to propose that the apache-1.3 tree be migrated over to subversion.

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

2004-05-08 Thread Jim Jagielski
quality code we can and that the Apache name is trusted and associated with quality. So sometimes we need to act in ways to hopefully ensure that :) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com

Apache 1.3 to be moved to SVN

2004-05-19 Thread Jim Jagielski
I believe that we've rec'd quite a few +1s on the issue of moving apache-1.3 to subversion and no -1s. Let's give it a few more days, but unless we hear otherwise, we should consider making it official Monday or so (the 24th). At that point, we can ask the infrastructure team to perform the

Re: mod_ldap testing

2004-05-24 Thread Jim Jagielski
On May 21, 2004, at 9:43 PM, Graham Leggett wrote: Hi all, The outstanding bugs for mod_ldap* in Bugzilla have gone from 38 down to 9 - single figures at last. There are 4 open segfault bugs - can y'all give the code a bit of a hammering to see if there are any gotchas left un-stomped-on.

Re: Move apache-1.3 to Subversion

2004-05-24 Thread Jim Jagielski
On May 23, 2004, at 4:01 PM, Manoj Kasichainula wrote: On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:35:13AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: There's only one thing for us to decide; how to define the layout under httpd/ in the SVN repository. e.g. .../ httpd/ trunk/ branches/ 1.3.x/ 2.0.x/

Re: Move apache-1.3 to Subversion

2004-05-24 Thread Jim Jagielski
Sander Striker wrote: On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 14:13, Jim Jagielski wrote: On May 23, 2004, at 4:01 PM, Manoj Kasichainula wrote: On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:35:13AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: There's only one thing for us to decide; how to define the layout under httpd/ in the SVN

Re: 1.3.31 regression affecting Front Page?

2004-05-28 Thread Jim Jagielski
/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29237 See also http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29257 http://www.rtr.com/fp2002disc/_disc2/0a71.htm -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http

Re: 1.3.31 regression affecting Front Page?

2004-05-28 Thread Jim Jagielski
=1.173r2=1.174 See also http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29257 http://www.rtr.com/fp2002disc/_disc2/0a71.htm -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com

Re: 1.3.31 regression affecting Front Page?

2004-05-29 Thread Jim Jagielski
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: At 07:09 AM 5/28/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote: I've backed out that patch and asked Rasmus to send a replacemnet which addresses his specific problem but does not cause the below behavior. I'm tempted to release 1.3.32... Collect another week or few of data

Re: mod_proxy.so in Apache 2.0.49

2004-06-02 Thread Jim Jagielski
g g wrote: I am trying to install Apache 2.0.49 on AIX 5.2 with proxy module enabled. I am build the source code using following options: 1)configure --prefix=Location --enable-so --enable-proxy 2)make 3)make install After the installation is complete, if we try to look for

Re: 1.3.31 regression affecting Front Page?

2004-06-09 Thread Jim Jagielski
1.3.32 without this fix would be a nasty backwards step. The original problem this fixes is serious. -Rasmus On Fri, 28 May 2004, Jim Jagielski wrote: I've backed out that patch and asked Rasmus to send a replacemnet which addresses his specific problem but does not cause the below behavior

Re: 1.3.31 regression affecting Front Page?

2004-06-09 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Jun 9, 2004, at 3:24 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: I guess what we are agreeing on here is that the logic that sets keepalive to 0 is faulty and that is probably where the real fix lies. yeah... it's pretty inconsistent. Looking at ap_set_keepalive even after we know the connection will be

Re: Proxy Cookie Support (Bug #10722)

2004-06-25 Thread Jim Jagielski
. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson

Re: Proxy Cookie Support (Bug #10722)

2004-06-25 Thread Jim Jagielski
, in ap_http_header_filter)? It overlays the 2, so yes. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both

Re: Proxy Cookie Support (Bug #10722)

2004-06-25 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Jun 25, 2004, at 9:36 AM, Nick Kew wrote: OK, on further consideration after posting, I've reached the view that the 2.0.49 patch should be modified. I'd propose to run the same transformations on Set-Cookie headers from the backend, but move the rewriting - along with the rewriting of Date

Re: Proxy Cookie Support (Bug #10722)

2004-06-25 Thread Jim Jagielski
, save_table, r-err_headers_out, Set-Cookie, NULL); line should be removed. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty

apachectl script enhancement

2004-06-28 Thread Jim Jagielski
Anyone have any problem if we enhance apachectl a bit to allow for -v/-V printout? Like ./apachectl version | ./apachectl fullversion ?

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >