Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 82609 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jun 2002 23:26:36 -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 82595 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2002 23:26:36 -0000 Errors-To: Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020618182710.02917008@pop3.rowe-clan.net> X-Sender: wrowe%rowe-clan.net@pop3.rowe-clan.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:28:24 -0500 To: dev@httpd.apache.org From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." Subject: Re: Are we +1 for 1.3.26 and 2.0.38? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N At 06:15 PM 6/18/2002, you wrote: >-1 for 1.3.26. The -f parameter appears to be broken at least on >NetWare. The addition of the 'F' (uppercase) parameter in the argument >list of getopt() looks like it is conflicting with the 'f' (lowercase) >parameter. When I remove the 'F' parameter, -f starts working again. >I'm still looking at it but it looks like the 'F' (uppercase) stole the >':' from the 'f' (lowercase) parameter. Since that's new... and since you create the Netware bundles, I'd suggest you author the patch, put in up on apply_to_1.3.26 and build your binaries as such. Does that make sense? Sounds like the same damned typo introduced by dirkx on Win32, I'm sorry I didn't grep netware as well :-( Bill