Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 7175 invoked by uid 6000); 8 May 1998 18:20:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 7043 invoked from network); 8 May 1998 18:20:07 -0000 Received: from ns2.remulak.net (HELO Mail.Golux.Com) (root@198.115.138.27) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 8 May 1998 18:20:07 -0000 Received: from Golux.Com (p5.ts2.nashu.NH.tiac.com [206.119.233.38]) by Mail.Golux.Com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA28982; Fri, 8 May 1998 14:19:11 -0400 Message-ID: <35534CB8.B38B7FA5@Golux.Com> Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 14:19:36 -0400 From: Rodent of Unusual Size Organization: The Apache Group X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Server version OS/2 console banner fix References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org Marc Slemko wrote: > > The server string isn't for "webmasters to add comments about what they've > done"! That isn't the point of it, and encouraging such things is > foolish. You're missing my point again. I was typing colloquially. The httpd binary is not necessarily the entirety of a Web server - functionality external to it may be part of what make a server what it is. If someone has enhanced its site in some significant server-related way beyond what httpd provides, they should be able to note that fact in the version string. Or take another case - modules for which no source is available/provided, and that have an effect worth mentioning. Should the Webmaster have to wait around until the authors get around to enhancing it to use ap_add_version_component()? If he can compile, he could hack the SERVER_SUBVERSION string - but then that's broken if the module in question is being dynamically loaded, and isn't at the moment. And if he can't compile, he's out of luck altogether. #ken P-)} Ken Coar Apache Group member "Apache Server for Dummies"