On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 06:55:48AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> As I said a LONG time ago. I'm not veto'ing this change. That doesn't
> mean I can't gripe about it. I am sick and tired of going back and forth
> over issues that were decided years ago.
And I am sick and tired of hearing about things that were "decided"
years ago that were merely poorly informed changes made while fooling
around with an early threaded httpd. These things will get fixed early
in the process if we can spend our time fixing them rather than arguing
about how long it has been in the code. The only thing that matters is
which will be better for the people who actually use the software.
I understand why SIGWINCH was desired at that time. What I didn't understand
was why it was still being used when we know SIGWINCH is not a good signal,
is not even implemented in some of our supported platforms, and conflicts
with all of the external documentation and control scripts for httpd.
I definitely agree that it is best to have it work consistently on all
platforms, but the only way we can do that is with the daemon option (-k ?)
that we currently use on win32. That is how many other daemons have solved
this same problem on Unix.
....Roy
