reasonable inndf patch?

Katsuhiro Kondou kondou at
Sat Dec 4 16:09:30 UTC 1999

In article <9912011751.AA09596 at>,
	Uli Zappe <uli at> wrote;

} as I've told you I've been plagued by totally irregular and irreproducible  
} throttlings of innd by innwatch because inndf wrongly reports 0 bytes of free  
} space (on NEXTSTEP 3.3).

If so, inndf for NEXTSTEP 3.3 is useless, and I think
it'd be better to comment out relevant lines in
innwatch.ctl rather than modifying inndf.c.  I think
current inndf.c would notice system error, if STATFUNCT()
occasionally fails.
Katsuhiro Kondou

More information about the inn-workers mailing list