Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 38484 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2002 05:32:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 38471 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2002 05:32:11 -0000 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 21:32:21 -0800 From: Aaron Bannert To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] -DNO_DETACH and/or apr_proc_detach() confusion? Message-ID: <20020401213221.A1154@clove.org> Mail-Followup-To: Aaron Bannert , dev@httpd.apache.org References: <200204012153.g31LrTp02672@smtp-server.nc.rr.com> <20020401141018.S1154@clove.org> <20020401143512.T1154@clove.org> <20020402042046.GC19657@lizzy.catnook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020402042046.GC19657@lizzy.catnook.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 08:20:24PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote: > On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 09:07:28PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > I'll forget about it for now (but I will commit a cleanup of > > apr_proc_detach() which won't change the semantics). For the long > > term I guess I want -DFOREGROUND and appropriate support in > > apr_proc_detach(). > > Please, please don't change the semantics because it will make it again > impossible to run Apache under a process controller. No worries, the semantics will stay (even if the syntax changes). -aaron