On 3/9/2010 5:52 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 09 Mar 2010, at 1:46 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > >>> Hmmm - in that case it may make sense to drop the ifdef entirely, >>> and if a >>> unix platform is found to not support O_BLOCK, we can then make a >>> call then >>> as what to do. The ifdef could in theory be solving a problem we >>> don't have. >> >> I mis-worded this slightly -- I should have said "maybe no known >> platforms have this issue". I have no idea what the answer is. > > In theory, when people try apr v1.5 for the first time, we're likely > to find out. I suspect it may be worth assuming support is present, > and then if it turns out that a platform that is still used doesn't > support it, we can then reintroduce the ifdef (and ENOTIMPL).
-1 veto, please revert the backport. If you are experimenting on users, can we please keep that activity to trunk? Some of us here are committed to offering developers a stable library of features they can count on. Thanks in advance.
