From: Jesse S S. <js...@in...> - 2001-01-30 21:25:48
|
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 04:16:00PM -0500, Charles Seeger wrote: > +------ TJ Saunders wrote (Tue, 3-Oct-30, 1:26 +0000): > | > | jss>I have contacted Johnie Ingram regarding the two above. He was, > | jss>ummm .., not-commitant. :( That means I'll probably be pulling > | jss>mod_sqlpw and friends. > | > | Hmmm...is there any way to _not_ pull those modules? I know of at least > | one proftpd-developer willing to help maintain those in some capacity, and > | we can pitch in, too. I think quite a few proftpd users use those SQL > | databases for non-system authentication information, and probably logging. > | I'd hate to deprive them of some nifty functionality. > > I have to agree with TJ here. My impression from list traffic is that > mod_sqlpw and friends are deployed at a lot of sites, and it would > disappoint many to have them pulled altogether. Better to leave them > in and label them "unsupported, use at your own risk" and include a > list of known bugs and/or BugIDs. Afterall, they are not included in > the default build. The virtual-user feature is mandatory for some sites. > Maybe they can be fixed sometime between rc3 and -final. *If* I had > either mysql or postgres installed and the consequent experience, > I might consider jumping on it myself. But, ... > > <cynical>A threat to pull them included with the known bugs list might > help smoke out someone who depends on mod_sqlpw to fix it.</cynical> Actually, that was my secret hope. ;) Pull 'em from rc3 and that will cause enough anguish to flush out those hiding developers! -- "In the event of a failure, the system can be configured to automatically restart itself. This feature of Windows NT Server provides maximum system up-time." -- Reliability and Fault Tolerance in Windows NT Server, MSC |