Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 25201 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2004 16:38:29 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Jun 2004 16:38:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 56256 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jun 2004 16:38:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 56135 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jun 2004 16:38:35 -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 56115 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jun 2004 16:38:35 -0000 Received: from [196.30.143.210] (HELO gatekeeper.fma.co.za) (196.30.143.210) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:38:35 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gatekeeper.fma.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A3033BE9; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:38:10 +0200 (SAST) Received: from gatekeeper.fma.co.za ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gatekeeper.fma.co.za [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04755-04; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:38:09 +0200 (SAST) Received: from sharp.fm (dungeon.fma.co.za [196.30.143.214]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gatekeeper.fma.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id E322333020; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:37:41 +0200 (SAST) Message-ID: <40CF210C.6080307@sharp.fm> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:17:16 +0200 From: Graham Leggett User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.2) Gecko/20040301 X-Accept-Language: en-za, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brad Nicholes Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/experimental util_ldap.c References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fma.co.za X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Brad Nicholes wrote: > Do the docs need to be updated for this change? Allowing relative > paths to be resolved against ServerRoot seemed like fairly standard > procedure. Looking at the docs there now, I think you're right. Just wanted to check whether there was anything that implied an absolute path was necessary. Regards, Graham --