httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject Re: Adding the OS type
Date Tue, 05 May 1998 05:24:11 GMT
At 10:05 AM 5/4/98 -0400, you wrote:
>The two are not equivalent.  You're making the assumption that the
>only thing that should ever contribute to the server version is
>something coded into the binary (e.g., a module).  I disagree; I
>think the Webmaster is entitled to make the decision that some
>external-to-httpd addon or plugin is worthy of mention in the
>server version.  What that may be, I don't know - but robbing the
>server owner of this flexibility is something with which I don't
>agree.  It's *his* server that he's running, after all.

They would still be able to edit SERVER_BASEVERSION in httpd.h.

>In fact, I'd rather have a directive that allowed such additions to
>be made at run-time rather than requiring a complete rebuild, for
>exactly this reason.

Such a directive would not need the -DSERVER_SUBVERSION.

>> Unless Ken wants to rescind his -1 on Dean's patch, I guess we should.
>If someone can convince me counter to my remarks in my first
>paragraph above, I'll take it back.  As it stands, though, Dean's
>patch disenfranchises Webmasters unless they're also developers - which
>I don't think is fair at all.

Teaching webmasters that they *can* edit source code, particularly a
harmless #define somewhere, is probably not a bad thing.  Recommending they
modify that string by using a "AddToVersionString my_pet_hamster/1.2" is
fine by me too.  

>I'll wait until I hear a couple more thoughts on this before I do
>anything else; it's very discouraging to keep coming up with ideas
>and getting told they're wrong and stupid.  I have thoughts on a
>clean way to do this, but I don't care to get shot down again..

I understand.  I'm just less concerned about supporting something that has
only been in the betas.	


pure chewing satisfaction                        

View raw message