httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aidan Cully <ai...@panix.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] "responsible party" for requests.
Date Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:06:10 GMT
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 09:04:23PM, Jim Jagielski said:
> Aidan Cully wrote:
> > I should point out that my patch doesn't modify SuEXEC at all, and
> > should not change any behaviour unless the admin adds a URIOwner
> > directive in httpd.conf.
> 
> Well, if someone _does_ use it, then it _does_ modify how suEXEC
> works, so the point is still valid. Plus, it changes the API (as
> far as exportable functions).

In which case, maybe I should point out that it does fix a problem,
which is that it allows SuEXEC to be used with mod_userdir.  It
also allows for users to own their own CGI-scripts, without needing
a ~user request.  Well, now it does, anyway.. :-}

The change in the API is one of the things I thought might cause
trouble..  

> > > Sometimes local hacks simply remain local. Just because something is
> > > submitted is no guarantee that it'll be included.
> > 
> > Of course not..  I've got no problem with my code not going into the
> > tree.  I'm a bit annoyed at having to maintain local hacks, but that's
> > not enough to get me to send mail to the list by itself..  What bothers
> > me is that what I submitted was basically _ignored_ for a month.  Say
> > what you want about the code, or how important it is for Apache..  But
> > not saying anything just leaves me aimless.  See my point?
> 
> Yep. There _are_ other things going on at present (and the recent
> past, as attested to by 1.3.6 being available) so that's one part
> of the reason, but the absolute truth is that no one felt "motivated"
> enough by the patch to follow through with it. No reflection on the
> patch itself, or you or your coding ability, it's just that, I'm guessing,
> no one saw any compelling need for it to be included. It's hard to
> follow through on every submitted patch.

OK..  I knew at the time that a new release was coming out, and that
the patch probably wouldn't be looked at for a while.  I don't want to
belabor the point, but even a "we're really busy right now, ask again
later" would have been nice to see..  Anyway, I don't like to argue,
so I'll stop now.

--aidan
-- 
Aidan Cully       "Umm..  Could you call back?  My house is on fire."
Panix Staff          --Tom Waits
aidan@panix.com

Mime
View raw message