This gets -DNO_DETACH working for me with Apache's prefork MPM on
Linux and FreeBSD. But from Aaron's commit log for revision
1.34 I gather that this will break daemontools-like programs.
How should I get ./httpd -DNO_DETACH to work? Calling setsid() is
bogus.
This patch avoids the setsid()
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:53:29PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
This gets -DNO_DETACH working for me with Apache's prefork MPM on
Linux and FreeBSD. But from Aaron's commit log for revision
1.34 I gather that this will break daemontools-like programs.
How should I get ./httpd -DNO_DETACH to
Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:53:29PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
This gets -DNO_DETACH working for me with Apache's prefork MPM on
Linux and FreeBSD. But from Aaron's commit log for revision
1.34 I gather that this will break daemontools-like
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 05:23:07PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
as far as error reporting:
the error is written to the log, not to stderr, so you don't see it
Can we correct this so there is immediate response on stderr?
as far as what I want to do:
I just want to run httpd in the
Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 05:23:07PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
as far as error reporting:
the error is written to the log, not to stderr, so you don't see it
Can we correct this so there is immediate response on stderr?
as far as what I
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 09:07:28PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
I'll forget about it for now (but I will commit a cleanup of
apr_proc_detach() which won't change the semantics). For the long
term I guess I want -DFOREGROUND and appropriate support in
apr_proc_detach().
Please, please don't
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 09:07:28PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
it isn't called in the parent... that's why I wanted to use
-DNO_DETACH :)
by parent I meant apache parent, not just that process that forked
other processes.
note that -DNO_DETACH from gdb is doomed... setsid() will fail (at
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 08:20:24PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 09:07:28PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
I'll forget about it for now (but I will commit a cleanup of
apr_proc_detach() which won't change the semantics). For the long
term I guess I want -DFOREGROUND and
