You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net> on 2002/03/21 21:20:15 UTC
[PATCH] reversion mod_ssl (showstopper)
What am I missing here? Why shouldn't the mod_ssl version just be the
Apache version since with Apache 2.0 mod_ssl is now a core module?
(I haven't test-compiled this, but I'm happy to make sure it works if
this is the right thing.)
Index: mod_ssl.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/modules/ssl/mod_ssl.h,v
retrieving revision 1.81
diff -u -r1.81 mod_ssl.h
--- mod_ssl.h 17 Mar 2002 17:32:24 -0000 1.81
+++ mod_ssl.h 21 Mar 2002 20:19:31 -0000
@@ -64,8 +64,6 @@
#ifndef __MOD_SSL_H__
#define __MOD_SSL_H__
-#define MOD_SSL_VERSION "3.0a0"
-
/*
* Optionally enable the experimental stuff, but allow the user to
* override the decision which experimental parts are included by using
Index: ssl_engine_pphrase.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/modules/ssl/ssl_engine_pphrase.c,v
retrieving revision 1.28
diff -u -r1.28 ssl_engine_pphrase.c
--- ssl_engine_pphrase.c 17 Mar 2002 17:32:24 -0000 1.28
+++ ssl_engine_pphrase.c 21 Mar 2002 20:19:31 -0000
@@ -703,7 +703,7 @@
*/
if (*pnPassPhraseDialog == 1) {
apr_file_printf(writetty, "%s mod_ssl/%s (Pass Phrase Dialog)\n",
- AP_SERVER_BASEVERSION, MOD_SSL_VERSION);
+ AP_SERVER_BASEVERSION, AP_SERVER_BASEREVISION);
apr_file_printf(writetty, "Some of your private key files are encrypted for security reasons.\n");
apr_file_printf(writetty, "In order to read them you have to provide us with the pass phrases.\n");
}
Index: ssl_engine_vars.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/modules/ssl/ssl_engine_vars.c,v
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -r1.16 ssl_engine_vars.c
--- ssl_engine_vars.c 13 Mar 2002 20:47:55 -0000 1.16
+++ ssl_engine_vars.c 21 Mar 2002 20:19:31 -0000
@@ -601,7 +601,7 @@
#endif
}
else if (strEQ(var, "INTERFACE")) {
- result = apr_psprintf(p, "mod_ssl/%s", MOD_SSL_VERSION);
+ result = apr_psprintf(p, "mod_ssl/%s", AP_SERVER_BASEREVISION);
}
else if (strEQ(var, "LIBRARY")) {
result = apr_pstrdup(p, SSL_LIBRARY_TEXT);
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: [PATCH] reversion mod_ssl (showstopper)
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 03:20:15PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> What am I missing here? Why shouldn't the mod_ssl version just be the
> Apache version since with Apache 2.0 mod_ssl is now a core module?
I'd guess this was done since mod_ssl for 1.3 is already at version 2.8,
so then calling it "mod_ssl/2.0" again could be confusing.
joe
RE: [PATCH] reversion mod_ssl (showstopper)
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: trawick@rdu88-250-166.nc.rr.com
> [mailto:trawick@rdu88-250-166.nc.rr.com]On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
> Sent: 21 March 2002 21:20
> What am I missing here? Why shouldn't the mod_ssl version just be the
> Apache version since with Apache 2.0 mod_ssl is now a core module?
+1
Sander
Re: [PATCH] reversion mod_ssl (showstopper)
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On 21 Mar 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> What am I missing here? Why shouldn't the mod_ssl version just be the
> Apache version since with Apache 2.0 mod_ssl is now a core module?
+1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA