Brian writes:
> I haven't had a problem. For the record I've integrated every patch
> posted as of last night around 8pm, with the exception of two of Roy's
> (the log file patches, logging of referrer needs some discussion as I
> think we want to see customizable logging, right?
Right -- it should be near the end of the enhancement list.
I guess it needs a number -- will do.
> and the one using
> open()/close() instead of fopen()/fclose() as it was causing core dumps -
Huh? Say it ain't so. :(
The only way I can think this could cause a core dump is if some
other enhancement has been added that writes to the access_log --
the changes in the patch are pure, portable Unix (I checked them with
my copy of Stevens' Advanced Programming ...) and they've been running
great on my server.
I checked the patch (and renamed the file to patch.B6.log_no_stdio).
Do we really want to use this as a naming convention? Blecho.
I would prefer "B006-log_no_stdio.txt"
.......Roy
> I haven't had a problem. For the record I've integrated every patch
> posted as of last night around 8pm, with the exception of two of Roy's
> (the log file patches, logging of referrer needs some discussion as I
> think we want to see customizable logging, right?
Right -- it should be near the end of the enhancement list.
I guess it needs a number -- will do.
> and the one using
> open()/close() instead of fopen()/fclose() as it was causing core dumps -
Huh? Say it ain't so. :(
The only way I can think this could cause a core dump is if some
other enhancement has been added that writes to the access_log --
the changes in the patch are pure, portable Unix (I checked them with
my copy of Stevens' Advanced Programming ...) and they've been running
great on my server.
I checked the patch (and renamed the file to patch.B6.log_no_stdio).
Do we really want to use this as a naming convention? Blecho.
I would prefer "B006-log_no_stdio.txt"
.......Roy