Mark Phippard wrote:
>> APR_BINARY has no effect on Windows or Unix, as far as I know. APR does
>> _not_ do end-of-line conversion on file contents, so APR_BINARY and its
>> documentation is a bit misleading.
>>
>
> We are looking at the Unix implementation, the one Max referred to. It
> just opens both files (without a binary flag) and then just reads and
> writes. Does opening a file on Unix without the binary flag have any
> meaning?
>
There's no difference between "text" and "binary" files on Unix.
>> The question is, then, whether the OS/400 port of APR is correct in not
>> using APR_BINARY in apr_file_copy or not.
>>
>
> I suspect this is another case of a function that they (IBM) do not really
> need for httpd and the Unix code compiles and nominally works. Also, the
> APR documentation does not really specify what the function ought to do.
> It seems to me that APR ought to be specifying the APR_BINARY flag the way
> that Paul's proposed patch does. The only reply I got from IBM was that
> they are using the APR code for this function without modification.
>
Yes, I think that APR should be using APR_BINARY, too. I guess nobody
really noticed there was a problem because most of the testing was done
on platforms where APR_BINARY has no meaning.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Feb 25 02:02:46 2006