Re: apacheconfig patch review requested
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 01:35:19PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:27:44PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > Hi. Anyone know perl? :-)
> >
> > Bug #12094 (apache's oldest still-open bug!), #59998, #105820 and now
> > #129372 would seem to all be fixable by the patch attached to #105820.
> > Thanks to Steve Stock for supplying the patch. Since I don't grok perl,
> > I'd just like someone to review it and see if it looks reasonable.
> > If it is, I'll incorporate it in apache 1.3.22-6.
>
> Well, the two BUG comments upset me a bit. The latter at least is a
> problem. It should be possible to solve both fairly easily - the
> former with a hash table (preferably hashing on inode/dev rather than
> filename) and the latter by prepending /etc/apache to relative paths.
> I'm fairly certain Apache does nothing more complicated than that.
The inode hash is a good idea, looks to be a simple addition. Any
thoughts on using a $main::something style variable name? These appear
in other parts of the program, but it seems a bit too much like bad
style to me.
Relative paths are based off the ServerRoot setting. By default this
is set in httpd.conf to /etc/apache, however it may also be set on the
command line and removed from httpd.conf. Because I don't know how
flexible apacheconfig needs to be with respect to local configuration
changes I left this functionality out and labeled it a bug. If it is
safe to assume that ServerRoot will always be set in httpd.conf then
fixing relative includes is easy enough.
Steve Stock
steve@technolope.org
Reply to: