httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: config/2326: AccessConfig and ResourceConfig redirect to nul fails
Date Mon, 01 Jun 1998 17:45:47 GMT
Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> Note that, technically, /any/path/nul is a "valid" name to use for such
> things.  Just like some mad Unix sysadmin had gone and created a "null" in
> every directory on the system.
> 
> I would, however, sleep quite easily if we only allowed "nul" without any
> path to be used.

Same here... That's what the code will do.


Any other issues before we roll in the next few hours?

> 
> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 07:37:50AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > > Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > So is it called 'nul' under NT??
> > > > 
> > > > I'm pretty sure that it is. I'll can test this afternoon, but I wanted
> > > > to report this before the tarball is rolled.
> > > 
> > > That would be great... If 'nul' == '/dev/null' I can easily adjust
> > > the code.
> > 
> > I've just confirmed it. "type summary.dat > nul" resulted in no files
> > created. As an interesting side note:
> > 
> > dir nul
> > 
> > in C:\ resulted in:
> > 
> > Directory of \\.
> > 
> > File not Found
> > 
> > Weird.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com - http://www.io.com/~manojk/
> > "It never hurts to help!" - Eek the Cat just before something painful
> > 
> 
> 


-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   |||   jim@jaguNET.com   |||   http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul,
            cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"

Mime
View raw message