On 06/19/2009 07:53 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 00:26 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> I don't have an objection, it seems you thought this out, but I don't >> always seem to have a buy in over what is "compatibility" - you might >> want the opinion of one or more port maintainers ;) > > OK, I'll be waiting for more opinions on this. Thank you for yours! > > The "thought out" bit for me here boils down to this: > ---------------- > If an fd was opened through APR API and it was not marked to be > inherited or without cleanup, then it should not be available in the > child process to apps that call fork() directly. The present situation,
I guess you mean exec instead of fork here correct? Its finally a patch about CLOEXEC. Regards Rüdiger
