Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 86317 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jan 2001 17:53:46 -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 86306 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2001 17:53:45 -0000 Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 09:57:21 -0800 (PST) From: rbb@covalent.net X-Sender: rbb@koj To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: NO_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT? In-Reply-To: <3A58AC2E.920865A6@algroup.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N > > Take a look at hints.m4. That's where we should have defined values like > > this in 2.0. I'm not sure that NO_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT is used anywhere, but > > I haven't checked. > > Actually, it seems that threading and FreeBSD 3.2 just don't get on too > well. I'm going to give up and use prefork instead... > > Didn't we know this already? Is there some way to make things complain > if we try to do this? Tony has mentioned that threading on FreeBSD before 4.2-STABLE is a relatively bad thing to do. I will look into generating an error when somebody tries to configure threads for a FreeBSD before 4.2. I won't be able to test it though, because all of my FreeBSD machines are running 4.2. If I post a patch, could you see if it works? Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------