Return-Path: <new-httpd-owner-new-httpd-archive=hyperreal.org@apache.org>
Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org
Received: (qmail 5834 invoked by uid 6000); 26 Oct 1997 16:58:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 5818 invoked from network); 26 Oct 1997 16:58:46 -0000
Received: from alcor.process.com (192.42.95.16)
  by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 26 Oct 1997 16:58:46 -0000
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 11:58 -0400
From: COAR@PROCESS.COM (Rodent of Unusual Size)
Message-Id: <009BC58EDEA0594B.0C92@PROCESS.COM>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: inetd mode broken again
X-VMS-To: SMTP%"new-httpd@apache.org"
X-VMS-Cc: COAR
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

>From the fingers of Marc Slemko flowed the following:
>
>On Sat, 25 Oct 1997, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
>> +1 for removing inetd support.
>
>I can't say I am thrilled with the idea because inetd mode _does_ work
>fine, except for small things that keep breaking it, and it _is_ useful in
>some situations.

    Would you be thrilled with 1.2.* being supported indefinitely as the
    Last Bastion of Inetd Mode?  And stripping support for it from 1.3+?
    In other words, if you want inetd mode, you use 1.2.* or nothing at
    all?

    Should "Servertype Inetd" imply "-X"?  I'm kinda inclined to think
    so.. would this address some of the issues?  (Not the first time
    it's been suggested by any means, but I don't remember any
    resolution.)

    #ken    P-)}