Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 91183 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jan 2001 22:04:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 91118 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2001 22:04:13 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: kurgan.lyra.org: gstein set sender to gstein@lyra.org using -f Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 14:04:04 -0800 From: Greg Stein To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: NO_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT? Message-ID: <20010107140404.G17220@lyra.org> Mail-Followup-To: new-httpd@apache.org References: <200101071808.NAA19490@devsys.jaguNET.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from rbb@covalent.net on Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 10:33:18AM -0800 X-URL: http://www.lyra.org/greg/ X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 10:33:18AM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote: > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > The below patch would, unfortunately, also hit FreeBSD 3.4 as well, > > which I think works OK... > > > > How about: > > > > case "$OS" in > > *freebsd*) > > case `uname -r` in > > 3.2*) > > blah blah > > > > Also easier to expand upon if need be later on I'm thinking. > > This sounds good to me, but it does mean that we need to be more explicit > about what won't work. For example, this won't hit 4.1, which we already > know has some problems with sendfile and threads. Fine: 3.2*|4.1*) :-) -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/