Le 05/04/2012 01:42, Ken Dreyer a écrit :
>> What do you think of
>>
>>
>>Require all denied
>>
>>
>>deny from all
>>
>>
>> mod_authz_core is only present in httpd >= 2.4
>> IfModule is part of "Core", so should be present in all case.
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
> Le 29/03/2012 07:40, Remi Collet a écrit :
>> I'm still searching for a good solution I can submit to upstream for
>> packages I maintained (ok, this is mainly an issue on debian-like distro).
>
> What do you think of
>
>
>
Remi Collet wrote:
> Once again : mod_access_compat is not the solution.
>
> mod_access_compat doesn't work as expected,
> see my other posts in this thread.
We need to get this fixed upstream, a compatibility module which is not
compatible is quite broken.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel maili
Le 03/04/2012 13:50, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn a écrit :
> Is there a way to only pull in mod_access_compat only on updates but not on
> new installs? That would be the best option I think as it would not break
> existing installations that get updated but allows new setups to either not
> have to deal
On 04/02/2012 09:08 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> 2012/3/27 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
>> On 03/27/2012 05:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> I assume that that mod_access_compat module only requires a few bytes, so> I
>>> don't see why it should not be loaded by default forever (or at least as
>>> long a
2012/3/27 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> On 03/27/2012 05:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> I assume that that mod_access_compat module only requires a few bytes, so> I
>> don't see why it should not be loaded by default forever (or at least as
>> long as upstream supports it, which hopefully will be for
Le 29/03/2012 07:40, Remi Collet a écrit :
> I'm still searching for a good solution I can submit to upstream for
> packages I maintained (ok, this is mainly an issue on debian-like distro).
What do you think of
Require all denied
deny fr
Le 28/03/2012 20:32, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" a écrit :
> So what we as an project will need to do, is to update our documentation
> and maintainers will have to update default apache configuration to
> reflect the new configuration syntax for the application/package they
> maintain.
Yes
> Admini
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> On 03/27/2012 05:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> I think "removing the legacy cruft" just for the goal of removing it is
>> not helpful at all and is actually the main cause of "half baked", "half
>> removed" stuff in Fedora.
>
> Interesting how did you come to that c
On 03/28/2012 12:56 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
Joe, I am not sure how this effects SELinux labeling, if it does at all.
Afaikt this does not affect selinux in anyway since these are
configuration syntax changes for the most part.
If we take this example which is common as an default in variou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/27/2012 03:19 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/27/2012 05:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> I think "removing the legacy cruft" just for the goal of removing it is not
>> helpful at all and is actually the main cause of "half baked", "half
On 03/27/2012 05:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I think "removing the legacy cruft" just for the goal of removing it is not
helpful at all and is actually the main cause of "half baked", "half
removed" stuff in Fedora.
Interesting how did you come to that conclusion?
I assume that that mod_acces
Le 27/03/2012 18:18, Joe Orton a écrit :
> Yup - the default config in the f18 httpd does load mod_access_compat,
> and I don't see a problem with shipping like that.
>
> It would be good to convert webapps over for f18, having said that.
It seems that mod_access_compat doesn't really work as e
Le Mar 27 mars 2012 18:18, Joe Orton a écrit :
> Yup - the default config in the f18 httpd does load mod_access_compat,
> and I don't see a problem with shipping like that.
However, this module does not seem to be installed on http yum updates
--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
devel mailing list
devel@l
2012/3/27 Joe Orton :
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 03:09:08PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhot said:
>> > The following is going to kill pretty much every packaged webapp unless
>> > they
>> > are changed now:
>> >
>> > https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/upgrading.html#a
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> We are very good at inventing and implementing the latest and the
> greatest but terribly at removing the legacy cruff at the same time,
> which results in half baked implementation leaving various things in
> "compat" mode and half removed from the distribution/insta
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III
wrote:
>> "JO" == Joe Orton writes:
>
> JO> Yup - the default config in the f18 httpd does load
> JO> mod_access_compat, and I don't see a problem with shipping like
> JO> that.
>
> This is good news, because even if we convert the httpd.
> "JO" == Joe Orton writes:
JO> Yup - the default config in the f18 httpd does load
JO> mod_access_compat, and I don't see a problem with shipping like
JO> that.
This is good news, because even if we convert the httpd.conf.d files in
all of the packages, they're all marked %config(noreplace)
27.03.2012 20:18, Joe Orton написал:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 03:09:08PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhot said:
The following is going to kill pretty much every packaged webapp unless they
are changed now:
https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/upgrading.html#access
Did
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 03:09:08PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhot said:
> > The following is going to kill pretty much every packaged webapp unless they
> > are changed now:
> >
> > https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/upgrading.html#access
>
> Did you read this part:
Le Lun 26 mars 2012 22:09, Chris Adams a écrit :
> Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhot said:
>> The following is going to kill pretty much every packaged webapp unless they
>> are changed now:
>>
>> https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/upgrading.html#access
>
> Did you read this part:
>
> "The old a
On 03/27/2012 12:53 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
I disagree. Since this is a major update that gets introduced together with
a new Fedora version this opportunity should be used to make switches like
these. Otherwise you'll be forced to either keep this compat stuff around
for a long time (gi
On 03/27/2012 03:54 AM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
> wrote:
>> I disagree. Since this is a major update that gets introduced together with
>> a new Fedora version this opportunity should be used to make switches like
>> these.
>
> In principle I agr
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
wrote:
> I disagree. Since this is a major update that gets introduced together with
> a new Fedora version this opportunity should be used to make switches like
> these.
In principle I agree with what you're saying, but this is still going
t
On 03/26/2012 10:10 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> 2012/3/26 Nicolas Mailhot :
>> The following is going to kill pretty much every packaged webapp unless they
>> are changed now:
>>
>> https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/upgrading.html#access
>
> IMHO mod_access_compat should be enabled by default
>
2012/3/26 Nicolas Mailhot :
> The following is going to kill pretty much every packaged webapp unless they
> are changed now:
>
> https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/upgrading.html#access
IMHO mod_access_compat should be enabled by default
https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_access_compat.html
Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhot said:
> The following is going to kill pretty much every packaged webapp unless they
> are changed now:
>
> https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/upgrading.html#access
Did you read this part:
"The old access control idioms should be replaced by the new
authent
The following is going to kill pretty much every packaged webapp unless they
are changed now:
https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/upgrading.html#access
--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 06:39:25PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Do you know if the new version of httpd has major changes in modules
> API? I'm trying to cobble together spec file for mod_spdy
> https://github.com/eventhorizonpl/mod_spdy/blob/master/mod_spdy.spec
> and I hope to finish it for
Hi,
2012/3/23 Joe Orton :
> httpd 2.4.1 packages are ready for dist-f18 and will be built early next
> week. Rebuilds will be required for all packages containing httpd
> modules. There are API changes in 2.4, so module packages may need
> patches if upstream has not done that work already:
>
>
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
> httpd 2.4.1 packages are ready for dist-f18 and will be built early next
> week. Rebuilds will be required for all packages containing httpd
> modules. There are API changes in 2.4, so module packages may need
> patches if upstream has not done
httpd 2.4.1 packages are ready for dist-f18 and will be built early next
week. Rebuilds will be required for all packages containing httpd
modules. There are API changes in 2.4, so module packages may need
patches if upstream has not done that work already:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/de
32 matches
Mail list logo
