On 17.09.2009 10:18, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > rj...@apache.org wrote: >> >> Modified: httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/modules/ftp/ftp_internal.h >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/modules/ftp/ftp_internal.h?rev=816074&r1=816073&r2=816074&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/modules/ftp/ftp_internal.h (original) >> +++ httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/modules/ftp/ftp_internal.h Thu Sep 17 07:00:24 2009 >> @@ -84,6 +84,8 @@ >> >> #if APR_HAVE_SYS_STAT_H >> #include <sys/stat.h> >> +#elif HAVE_SYS_STAT_H >> +#include <sys/stat.h> >> #endif > > NAK. The fragment above makes zero sense, please revert. > > #if APR_HAVE_SYS_STAT_H > > should be sufficent. If apr does not provide it consistently, and httpd > has, then the test becomes > > #ifdef HAVE_SYS_STAT_H > > which is an altogether different beast.
Sorry, of course. > First clue that the code above was > wrong is that you included the same code for both cases. This I don't understand. Which cases? > So provided that > you had no clue if APR consistently provided this and you wanted to rely I did have a clue (at least I thought so ;) ), I posted to d...@apr separately. It does *not* provide it. > upon config.h, then it becomes > > #if (defined(APR_HAVE_SYS_STAT_H) && APR_HAVE_SYS_STAT_H) \ > || defined(HAVE_SYS_STAT_H) > #include... > > but we know we don't need to go that far. Hmmm? Why doesn't that look like the right thing? You want to use only HAVE_SYS_STAT_H instead? I thought allowing the APR variant made some sense to support a forthcoming APR version, that might have the APR_ variant defined. > I'll answer the question you raised on list tomorrow, although it certainly > seemed like an apr question and not an httpd question. Yes, see d...@apr. Not that after reverting the source doesn't build on Solaris using gcc 4.1. The undefined file permission symbols make it err. Regards, Rainer
