On 25.01.2014 00:41, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Of course, one could also say that anyone who uses internal > APR implementation knowledge is doing something wrong... > > And they would have a point. > > But it still begs the question what to do w/ slotmem > which must set shmem permissions. I would guess what > we should really do is provide apr_shmem_perms(). We > could then have httpd 2.4 require APR 1.5.1 or later > and let those who choose to use ftok know the risks.
It would be APR 1.6, according to our API compat rules. -- Brane
