<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, maybe -X should issue a warning, maybe we should change the
> name of the definition. In the end, I just don't want to have this
> conversation for the fourth or fifth time.
Plop:
Index: server/main.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvspublic/httpd-2.0/server/main.c,v
retrieving revision 1.99
diff -u -r1.99 main.c
--- server/main.c 2001/05/22 01:31:11 1.99
+++ server/main.c 2001/06/21 17:42:17
@@ -280,6 +280,13 @@
destroy_and_exit_process(process, 1);
}
+void no_X_warning(process_rec *process)
+{
+ ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_STARTUP | APLOG_NOERRNO, 0, NULL, " -X
+ : deprecated - used -DONE_PROCESS instead");
+ destroy_and_exit_process(process, 1);
+}
+
+
int main(int argc, const char * const argv[])
{
char c;
@@ -354,6 +361,8 @@
case 'V':
show_compile_settings();
destroy_and_exit_process(process, 0);
+ case 'X':
+ no_X_warning(process);
case 'l':
ap_show_modules();
destroy_and_exit_process(process, 0);
--
David N. Welton
Free Software: http://people.debian.org/~davidw/
Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/
Personal: http://www.efn.org/~davidw/
Work: http://www.innominate.com/
