Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Build error w/ 2.2.31 and Fbsd10
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
References: <5DD02177-1156-490D-972C-4FA48723A17A@jaguNET.com>
 <55AD450A.4030709@apache.org>
From: Andy Wang <awang@ptc.com>
Message-ID: <55AD4A12.8070901@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:20:50 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55AD450A.4030709@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/ssl/ssl_engine_dh.c?revision=1680916&view=markup

Line 80
static const unsigned char dh1024_p[] = {
is in an #if 0

Line 113
is not
static const unsigned char dh1024_p[] = {

ssl_engine_dh.c:123:28: error: redefinition of 'dh1024_p' with a 
different type: 'const unsigned char []' vs 'unsigned char [128]'
static const unsigned char dh1024_p[] = {
                            ^
ssl_engine_dh.c:84:22: note: previous definition is here
static unsigned char dh1024_p[] = {

unless their patch screwed it up like you were speculating, could the 
freebsd preprocessor be picky?

Andy

On 07/20/2015 01:59 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Hmm, I don't see the line numbers of ssl_engine_dh.c in the the log matching with the ones of 2.2.31.
> And the log says somewhere above:
>
> Applying FreeBSD patches for apache22-2.2.31
>
> Maybe a faulty patch to ssl_engine_dh.c that changed the DH code for FreeBSD before 2.2.31?
>
> Regards
>
> R�diger
>
> On 07/20/2015 06:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Someone reported that 2.2.31 (w/ mod_ssl) doesn't build under FreeBSD 10:
>>
>>      https://feld.me/freebsd/apache22-2.2.31.log
>>
>> I will try it out and see.
>>