httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>
Subject Re: 1.1.2 plan
Date Sun, 12 Jan 1997 03:14:10 GMT
> On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Randy Terbush wrote:
> 
> > > What do people think of my updated directory index patch with the
> > > ifdef?
> > > 
> > > If there end up being lots of systems without ENOENT defined, having
> > > some provisions for that in 1.1.2 could avoid the need for 1.1.3...
> > 
> > Probably a good idea. If you get the CVS mail, you'll see that I have
> > applied this to 1.1.2 and am just waiting on dust to settle before
> > tagging.
> > 
> > Seems like adding the #error would also be a good idea so this does
> > not quitely compile for people if they don't have ENOENT.
> 
> I was just about to suggest this patch (I am wondering if some compilers
> may stop on the first error and not display the rest), but I see you have
> just committed one.  The one you committed looks fine, but in case anyone
> cares, what i was going to suggest is included below.

If anyone wants me to change it, I will. I figured the 3 #errors
would make them remove all three. *shrug*

> (oh, and what exactly is the difference between where HTTP_FORBIDDEN and
> FORBIDDEN should be used?  Looking at it, FORBIDDEN does seem to be the
> right one to use as your patch fixes.)

These defines were prefixed with HTTP_ for 1.2. The patches that you
see commited are to the 1.1 branch.

I've rolled the release and will hold until I hear further from
you about the core dumps.




Mime
View raw message