httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <wmr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Date Thu, 09 Jan 2014 20:15:04 GMT
I can certainly apply and propose for back port the defect fixes, this week.

Those which change the configured behavior in an unexpected way are no
longer easy fits on 2.2 or 2.4, and need further discussion about their
urgency here on list.  It would also be good to leave enhancements on
trunk/ for the time being to allow for additional review.

Give me into the weekend to get these all sorted and a subset of them
closed, unless someone is eager to beat me to them.
On Jan 9, 2014 10:06 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> Thx! I'd like to have Bill look over these. :)
>
> On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Mike Rumph <mike.rumph@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Jim,
> >
> > I would like to make a suggestion that is off topic from the last couple
> of replies but pertinent to a T&R of 2.4.8.
> >
> > If anyone is interested in having mod_remoteip work correctly in Apache
> httpd 2.4.8,
> > then the following bug reports and patches might be worth considering:
> >
> > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54651
> >    - This is my reworking to an attachment of a patch that was first
> presented over a year ago.
> >    - This is an essential patch for mod_remoteip to correctly process
> RemoteIPHeader headers that contain a list of IP addresses.
> >
> > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55972
> >    - This is a fix to an obvious error that I recently discovered while
> studying mod_remoteip.c.
> >
> > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55962
> >    - This is my implementation of an idea suggested by William A. Rowe
> Jr.
> >    - This one could bring a slight improvement in behavior to some
> unlikely use cases.
> >
> > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55886
> >    - This one is analysis on the question of what should appear in the
> client field on the server-status page after mod_remoteip works its magic.
> >
> > I am available to help with any further work that might be needed here.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mike Rumph
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/9/2014 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> "defect"?
> >>
> >> We support UDS in ProxyPass. We don't in mod_rewrite.
> >> Nor do we claim to. I don't think that's a "defect".
> >>
> >> If later on UDS support is *also* added to mod_rewrite,
> >> then good. But not having it there isn't, IMO, any
> >> reason to not include it where we say it is, and
> >> where we see it works.
> >>
> >> On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:29 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:01:58 -0500
> >>> Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr <blaise.tarr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>> So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being
> >>>>> valid. I temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r)
> >>>>> at mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly:
> >>>>>
> >>>> Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy,
> >>>> and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and
> >>>> currently isn't supported.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;)
> >>> No, it's currently not an issue, we haven't introduced that defect into
> >>> a release branch.
> >>>
> >>> Are you suggesting we hold off on the UDS support?  Or the 2.4.8 tag?
> >>> Or that new defects are interesting challenges for users?
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message