Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 5360 invoked by uid 6000); 12 Aug 1999 10:09:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 5352 invoked from network); 12 Aug 1999 10:09:55 -0000 Received: from ns.skylink.it (root@194.177.113.1) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 12 Aug 1999 10:09:55 -0000 Received: from kim.ispra.webweaving.org (va-160.skylink.it [194.185.55.160]) by ns.skylink.it (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA22011 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:09:42 +0200 Received: from kim.ispra.webweaving.org (kim.ispra.webweaving.org [10.0.0.2]) by kim.ispra.webweaving.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA17637 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:07:53 GMT X-Passed: MX on Ispra.WebWeaving.org Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:07:53 GMT and masked X-No-Spam: Neither the receipients nor the senders email address(s) are to be used for Unsolicited (Commercial) Email without the explicit written consent of either party; as a per-message fee is incurred for inbound and outbound traffic to the originator. Posted-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:07:53 GMT Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:07:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik X-Sender: dirkx@kim.ispra.webweaving.org To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] More on the error under FreeBSD 2.2.8/A-1.3.8/PHP3.0.12 In-Reply-To: <199908120020.UAA00843@devsys.jaguNET.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Want to comment on this? :) Yes, my fault. I should have watched what was happening more closely; instead of just accepting patches. In the original I quite intentionally change'd the name so as to leave the old one name's backward compatible; and put two lines of glue code in the old funciton names. But that was killed some time later. Will be fixed around 1500 GMT, unless someone beats me to it. Dw As soon as I get home I'll change the name's > Manoj Kasichainula wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 11, 1999 at 08:14:33PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > Does it make sense to keep the old behavior (since I'm thinking > > > modules use ap_uuencode) for Apache rather than fixing PHP per se? > > > > It does. > > > > -- > > Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com - http://www.io.com/~manojk/ > > > > >