headers
William A. Rowe Jr. | 16 Sep 2010 02:59

Re: svn commit: r997553 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c

Adding a few new RewriteCond tests for mod_rewrite, and I could use some help
from our mod_rewrite docu fans to capture this for trunk... please take a look
and offer patches if you would?

On 9/15/2010 7:54 PM, wrowe <at> apache.org wrote:
> Author: wrowe
> Date: Thu Sep 16 00:54:58 2010
> New Revision: 997553
> 
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=997553&view=rev
> Log:
> *) Accept modern bash test conventions of -h or -L for testing symlinks
>    (for another patch against -l yet-to-come)
> 
> *) Introduce >= and <= syntax for greater-or-equal, or less-or-equal
>    string comparisons
> 
> *) Respect [NC] conventions for >[=]/<[=] string comparison, which is
>    horribly sensitive to the current charset.
> 
> Modified:
>     httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c
> 
> Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c?rev=997553&r1=997552&r2=997553&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c Thu Sep 16 00:54:58 2010
>  <at>  <at>  -260,9 +260,11  <at>  <at>  typedef enum {
>      CONDPAT_FILE_XBIT,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
William A. Rowe Jr. | 16 Sep 2010 20:58

Fwd: svn commit: r997878 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c

This is the second feature change to mod_rewrite this week.

If anyone can volunteer to update the mod_rewrite.xml that would be fantastic!
If not I'll update the docs sometime later next week.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: svn commit: r997878 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:57:23 -0000
From: wrowe <at> apache.org
Reply-To: dev <at> httpd.apache.org
To: cvs <at> httpd.apache.org

Author: wrowe
Date: Thu Sep 16 18:57:23 2010
New Revision: 997878

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=997878&view=rev
Log:
Introduce integer comparison support in RewriteCond

The operators -gt, -ge, -eq, -le, -lt and -ne follow the bash test' semantics
for comparing the integer values of the lhs and rhs expressions, as opposed
to the string evaluations performed by > >= = <= and <.

Note that -lt and -le overlap the existing -l test, and could be confused in
expresions such as -ltestfile - to avoid this conflict use -L or -h in place
of the legacy -l file symlink test operator.

Modified:
    httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Rich Bowen | 17 Sep 2010 18:50
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: svn commit: r997878 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c

I'll take a go at it this weekend, I think. Not certain I'll have  
time, but I think I will.

On Sep 16, 2010, at 2:58 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> This is the second feature change to mod_rewrite this week.
>
> If anyone can volunteer to update the mod_rewrite.xml that would be  
> fantastic!
> If not I'll update the docs sometime later next week.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: svn commit: r997878 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/ 
> mod_rewrite.c
> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:57:23 -0000
> From: wrowe <at> apache.org
> Reply-To: dev <at> httpd.apache.org
> To: cvs <at> httpd.apache.org
>
> Author: wrowe
> Date: Thu Sep 16 18:57:23 2010
> New Revision: 997878
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=997878&view=rev
> Log:
> Introduce integer comparison support in RewriteCond
>
> The operators -gt, -ge, -eq, -le, -lt and -ne follow the bash test'  
> semantics
> for comparing the integer values of the lhs and rhs expressions, as
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Igor Galić | 19 Sep 2010 01:37
Gravatar

Advise for a docs-project kick-off


Hi folks,

Recently I've been looking at how to improve
Apache Traffic Server's Documentation:
http://trafficserver.apache.org/docs.html

Initially it has been written using
http://www.adobe.com/products/framemaker/
with ``help'' from
http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/grids/builder/

When looking at the source, the first thing one notices is
that it's HTML (with SSI) only.
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/trafficserver/site/trunk/

From this fact arises the wish for change: To make the
documentation more accessible to extension and enable easy
transformation to different formats, such as HTML, LaTeX, etc..

I have considered httpd's docs-project as base, but I'm not
sure how easily adaptable that is. From what I gather, most of
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/style/
would need to be rewritten.
My barrier here might be the lack of insight in XSLT.

I'd be glad to hear about your experiences with this or
any other comparably sane documentation system.

So long,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Tony Stevenson | 19 Sep 2010 12:45
Gravatar

Re: Advise for a docs-project kick-off

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:37:56PM +0000, Igor Galić wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> Recently I've been looking at how to improve
> Apache Traffic Server's Documentation:
> http://trafficserver.apache.org/docs.html
> 
> Initially it has been written using
> http://www.adobe.com/products/framemaker/
> with ``help'' from
> http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/grids/builder/
> 
> When looking at the source, the first thing one notices is
> that it's HTML (with SSI) only.
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/trafficserver/site/trunk/
> 
> From this fact arises the wish for change: To make the
> documentation more accessible to extension and enable easy
> transformation to different formats, such as HTML, LaTeX, etc..

Hey, 

I'd be inclinded, if I were you, to wait and see how the CMS works out.  If you can avoid a costly migration to
that, it may serve to write the content of the docs now, and do the formatting in that. 

> 
> I have considered httpd's docs-project as base, but I'm not
> sure how easily adaptable that is. From what I gather, most of
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/style/
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bhuvaneswaran A | 20 Sep 2010 12:57
Picon
Favicon

Misleading faq: 2048 bit server certificate

Ref: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/ssl/ssl_faq.html#keysize

In Apache 2.2.11, as far as I tested, the use of 2048 bit server
certificate is supported.
[bhuvan <at> cu062 CERTS]$ openssl rsa -noout -text -in server2048.key|grep key -i
Private-Key: (2048 bit)

However the following FAQ item is misleading.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Why does my 2048-bit private key not work?

The private key sizes for SSL must be either 512 or 1024 bits, for
compatibility with certain web browsers. A keysize of 1024 bits is
recommended because keys larger than 1024 bits are incompatible with
some versions of Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer,
and with other browsers that use RSA's BSAFE cryptography toolkit.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Either the FAQ item should be removed, or fixed as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------
May I use 2048-bit private key?

Yes, you can use 2048-bit private key. However, the keysize of 1024
bits is recommended. because keys larger than 1024 bits are
incompatible with some versions of Netscape Navigator and Microsoft
Internet Explorer, and with other browsers that use RSA's BSAFE
cryptography toolkit.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Issac Goldstand | 20 Sep 2010 13:15
Gravatar

Re: Misleading faq: 2048 bit server certificate

 On 9/20/2010 12:57 PM, Bhuvaneswaran A wrote:
> Ref: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/ssl/ssl_faq.html#keysize
>
> In Apache 2.2.11, as far as I tested, the use of 2048 bit server
> certificate is supported.
> [bhuvan <at> cu062 CERTS]$ openssl rsa -noout -text -in server2048.key|grep key -i
> Private-Key: (2048 bit)
>
> However the following FAQ item is misleading.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Why does my 2048-bit private key not work?
>
> The private key sizes for SSL must be either 512 or 1024 bits, for
> compatibility with certain web browsers. A keysize of 1024 bits is
> recommended because keys larger than 1024 bits are incompatible with
> some versions of Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer,
> and with other browsers that use RSA's BSAFE cryptography toolkit.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Either the FAQ item should be removed, or fixed as follows:
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> May I use 2048-bit private key?
>
> Yes, you can use 2048-bit private key. However, the keysize of 1024
> bits is recommended. because keys larger than 1024 bits are
> incompatible with some versions of Netscape Navigator and Microsoft
> Internet Explorer, and with other browsers that use RSA's BSAFE
> cryptography toolkit.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Rich Bowen | 20 Sep 2010 15:33
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Misleading faq: 2048 bit server certificate

I'm reasonably sure that "netscape navigator" appearing in any doc is  
an indication that the doc hasn't been touched for 5 or more years,  
and is ready for a complete overhaul.

On Sep 20, 2010, at 6:57 AM, Bhuvaneswaran A wrote:

...
> some versions of Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer,
...

--
Rich Bowen
rbowen <at> rcbowen.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Igor Galić | 20 Sep 2010 18:14
Gravatar

Re: Misleading faq: 2048 bit server certificate


----- "Rich Bowen" <rbowen <at> rcbowen.com> wrote:

> I'm reasonably sure that "netscape navigator" appearing in any doc is 
> 
> an indication that the doc hasn't been touched for 5 or more years,  
> and is ready for a complete overhaul.
> 
> On Sep 20, 2010, at 6:57 AM, Bhuvaneswaran A wrote:
> 
> ...
> > some versions of Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet
> Explorer,
> ...

I remember having done some sweeping of the old SSL FAQs in trunk,
so that doesn't look half as bad:

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_faq.html

Though some things like:

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_faq.html#contact
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_faq.html#resources
pointing to modssl.org

I'll get my hands dirty on trying to have those and others fixed.

Key generation is still suggested to be done with 1024 bit keys,
this should be overhauled to use 2048, etc...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Igor Galić | 21 Sep 2010 09:41
Gravatar

Re: Misleading faq: 2048 bit server certificate


----- "Igor Galić" <i.galic <at> brainsware.org> wrote:

> ----- "Rich Bowen" <rbowen <at> rcbowen.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'm reasonably sure that "netscape navigator" appearing in any doc
> is 
> > 
> > an indication that the doc hasn't been touched for 5 or more years, 
> 
> > and is ready for a complete overhaul.
> > 
> > On Sep 20, 2010, at 6:57 AM, Bhuvaneswaran A wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > > some versions of Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet
> > Explorer,
> > ...
> 
> I remember having done some sweeping of the old SSL FAQs in trunk,
> so that doesn't look half as bad:
> 
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_faq.html
> 
> Though some things like:
> 
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_faq.html#contact
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ssl/ssl_faq.html#resources
> pointing to modssl.org
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane