https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38642
--- Comment #18 from Aleksander Budzynowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-25 14:04:41 PST --- > for something that could be relied on by any number of .htaccess files for > such > a long span of time. I doubt many .htaccess rely on [that is, work-around] current behaviour, because: -The behaviour differs from httpd.conf behaviour, -is undocumented, and -when I posted about this to the (English) Apache users mailing list, nobody knew about the issue. > As I wrote – rush. :-) I think most calls were made in sections which are > touched by the fix-up hook (i.e. directory context) only. May be a check for > path_info != NULL would be better. Hmm, you're right for the most part. I was thinking you should have done: if (perdir != NULL && apr_table_get(r->notes,"substapplied") && instead of if (apr_table_get(r->notes,"substapplied") && perdir != NULL && except the latest code is structured a bit differently (the whole block already has a perdir check) so this is irrelevant. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
