Hi,
my thoughts exactly :)
Any luck with the pre-forking stuff yet?
cheers,
Ilja
On Friday, Oct 24, 2003, at 09:20 Europe/Amsterdam, Paul J Stevens
wrote:
<we should move this thread to dbmail-dev>
I for one would vote against having those patches be accepted into
CVS, and I imagine Ilja wont commit them as they are.
Don't get me wrong though; inetd functionality is a valuable
attribute, but I don't think they should be acquired by forking
existing files.
Personally, since I'm working on pre-forking functionality ala apache,
I'm pretty certain server.c is where such changes should occur.
And we should definitely allow admins to select such settings runtime:
SERVERTYPE=<inetd|standalone>
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 17:25, Matt Dickinson wrote:
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
I assume these patches are all against CVS (aka 2.0 branch).
No, sorry. 1.2 branch. I'll take a look @ 2.0 branch tomorrow.
Good as, I would assume that these changes would not be accepted into
CVS for 1.2, but might (I think should) be accepted for 2.0.
_______________________________________________
Dbmail mailing list
Dbmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
--
________________________________________________________________
Paul Stevens mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NET FACILITIES GROUP PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
_______________________________________________
Dbmail-dev mailing list
Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org
http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
--
IC&S
Koningsweg 4
3582 GE UTRECHT
PGP-key:
http://www.ic-s.nl/keys/ilja.txt
