On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 10:35:34AM -0500, Danny Chen wrote:
> Thanks... That's going to work... But what I don't understand is that why
> spamc doesn't take the -p (or any other run time option) with execl--
> execl("spamc", "-p", "12345",NULL). Is this because I send the input file
> via stdin, not '<', and spamc looks for '<' explicitly?I think the problem is more of execl wanting a full path, but you're only specifying the program name. Perhaps you want execlp()? The options in the exec look fine otherwise. > Also, if I link my code with modified spamc code, how is this going to > work with upgrading to higher version? Do I need to touch code again with > upgrade? -Danny Maybe, it depends. It's like using any other library. I don't think we've changed the API in the libspamc code in a while though, but then again it's not my puppy ... -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "They won't run unix, but look on the bright side, they won't run Windows either." - Martha Driscoll talking about 286s
pgprXb4X08KHg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
