You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> on 2010/09/15 20:38:24 UTC
Re: svn commit: r997396 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/server:
core.c main.c
On 09/15/2010 06:59 PM, wrowe@apache.org wrote:
> Author: wrowe
> Date: Wed Sep 15 16:59:56 2010
> New Revision: 997396
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=997396&view=rev
> Log:
> ap_document_root_check must live in libhttpd, not in the httpd binary,
> due to the way that symbols are resolved.
>
> Generally, main.c should export nothing.
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/server/core.c
> httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/server/main.c
Is this a platform specific change? I saw no entry in the status file.
Nevertheless it would be helpful to reference the trunk revision in
the log for this backport (r901557 in this case).
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: svn commit: r997396 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/server:
core.c main.c
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 9/15/2010 1:38 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> On 09/15/2010 06:59 PM, wrowe@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: wrowe
>> Date: Wed Sep 15 16:59:56 2010
>> New Revision: 997396
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=997396&view=rev
>> Log:
>> ap_document_root_check must live in libhttpd, not in the httpd binary,
>> due to the way that symbols are resolved.
>>
>> Generally, main.c should export nothing.
>>
>> Modified:
>> httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/server/core.c
>> httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/server/main.c
>
> Is this a platform specific change? I saw no entry in the status file.
That's because the author didn't look-ahead to corrections of their patch in svn.
Essentially, but not entirely. This would apply on any build based on libhttpd.
depending on the platform's load time linker, depth of namespaces, etc.
Where we build on libhttpd, shared objects should persist somewhere outside of
main.c and within the libhttpd.so's scope.
> Nevertheless it would be helpful to reference the trunk revision in
> the log for this backport (r901557 in this case).
Absolutely agreed, thanks for providing the reference :)