On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > Or you could consider using the ssl branch where all this stuff already
> > resides, without the hassle to maintain your own..
>
> I'll take a peek when they've fixed their CVS repository.
> It still seems broken (ie, spitting out HTML and confusing cv
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> > Ok. I'll keep it as a locally maintained branch for now.
>
> Or you could consider using the ssl branch where all this stuff already
> resides, without the hassle to maintain your own..
I'll take a pee
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Ok. I'll keep it as a locally maintained branch for now.
Or you could consider using the ssl branch where all this stuff already
resides, without the hassle to maintain your own..
> How is squid-3 coming along?
I am still bogged down in Squid-2.5 maint
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> > I have most of the SSL server side options (things such as the
> > capath option) ported from 3.0 to 2.5. I've been a bit out of the
> > squid-dev loop lately; is it worth getting it committed to squid-2.
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> I have most of the SSL server side options (things such as the
> capath option) ported from 3.0 to 2.5. I've been a bit out of the
> squid-dev loop lately; is it worth getting it committed to squid-2.5?
I am sorry to say but this is duplicated work. All t
Hi all,
I have most of the SSL server side options (things such as the
capath option) ported from 3.0 to 2.5. I've been a bit out of the
squid-dev loop lately; is it worth getting it committed to squid-2.5?
Adrian
--
Adrian ChaddI'm only a fanboy if
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
