httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <>
Subject Re: enough
Date Mon, 12 Feb 1996 14:11:30 GMT

> >/bin/ld: Unsatisfied symbols:
> >   utimes (code)
> >
> >Otherwise, looks great. And I'm not too bitter about the "None of 
> >Alexei's code is left" comment, either.
> Sigh. I started off using utime() and then switched to utimes() because
> I thought it would be more portable.
> Can I call for a straw poll on this list? Does your system have utime()
> and does it have utimes()?

The BSD systems I am using choose utime() and indicate that utime() is
a Posix thingy.

> >>  99.bind.patch          09-Feb-96 11:17    11K
> >
> >-1: Sorry, but after all the other patches, this one fails. Time for a
> >    rewrite?
> I think this veto is out of order; just because you didn't test the
> patch, it does mean that you have to veto it.
> In fact, the patch should apply cleanly against the 1.0.2 distribution,
> so you _can_ test it if you want to.

There were major conflicts with the NeXT socket opt patches that I think
we have resolved. None of the systems I have access to, (excepting HPUX
which I have not tried) don't have a problem with the NeXT format.
Making those changes in the make_sock() function that your 99 introduces
should make everything happy.

With exception of the problems reported by Brian with regard to 99 and
imagemaps, appears to work just fine.

View raw message