+1
On Mar 2, 2004, at 10:41 AM, Thom May wrote:
* Thom May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
Hey guys,
just wondering why we use system(copy...)/system(cp...) in htdigest
in 1.3,
when the netware option seems to be more secure?
The patch attached just rips out the ifdef and uses the netware code
* Andr? Malo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
* Thom May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Thom May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
Hey guys,
just wondering why we use system(copy...)/system(cp...) in htdigest in
1.3, when the netware option seems to be more secure?
The patch attached just rips
* Thom May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fix to 2.1 and then proposing it for backport to a totally different
codebase somewhat blows my mind.
IMO the two should happen more or less in parallel...
If (and only if) you have three +1 for the 1.3 patch (i.e. just one more),
then you can do it that
* Thom May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
Hey guys,
just wondering why we use system(copy...)/system(cp...) in htdigest in 1.3,
when the netware option seems to be more secure?
The patch attached just rips out the ifdef and uses the netware code
globally.
No complaints? Suggestions?
I'll commit
* Thom May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Thom May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
Hey guys,
just wondering why we use system(copy...)/system(cp...) in htdigest in
1.3, when the netware option seems to be more secure?
The patch attached just rips out the ifdef and uses the netware code
Hey guys,
just wondering why we use system(copy...)/system(cp...) in htdigest in 1.3,
when the netware option seems to be more secure?
The patch attached just rips out the ifdef and uses the netware code
globally.
-Thom
Index: htdigest.c
