You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@raleigh.ibm.com> on 1999/02/22 09:17:12 UTC
Fwd: Frontpage extensions under Apache 1.3.4
By no strech of the imagination would I claim that any Apache code
changes are necessary for this, but it's still interesting.
----- Forwarded message from Sitzkrieg Redundus <si...@ONASTICK.NET> -----
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:31:23 -0500
Reply-To: Sitzkrieg Redundus <si...@ONASTICK.NET>
From: Sitzkrieg Redundus <si...@ONASTICK.NET>
Subject: Frontpage extensions under Apache 1.3.4
To: BUGTRAQ@NETSPACE.ORG
I spent the bulk my time a few days back convincing the Frontpage 98
extensions and Apache 1.3.4 (patched with patch version 3.0.4.3) to play
nicely. After banging my head against it for a few hours, I got things to
what I thought was a workable point, and fired up httpd. And got an error
back about there being a syntax error on line 1 of /dev/null.
*blink*
By default, Apache 1.3.4 places all runtime directives in httpd.conf, and
leaves srm.conf and access.conf empty.
>From the default httpd.conf:
" You can have the server ignore these files altogether by using
'/dev/null' (for Unix) or "nul" (for Win32) for the arguments to the
directives."
Great. Except that when creating a root web, fp_install.sh calls
fpsrvadm.exe, which moves the file specified by the "ResourceConfig"
directive "file.bak" and installs its own. Thus, on systems running the
Apache 1.3.4 where the user has followed the advice in the
httpd.conf (or
*any* Apache install which points ResourceConfig and AccessConfig to
/dev/null for that matter) we see before:
stanis# ls -la /dev/null
crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1, 3 Feb 4 16:35 /dev/null
and after:
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root root 67 Feb 4 17:56 /dev/null
crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1, 3 Feb 4 16:35 /dev/null.bak
Silly fpsrvadm.... what have we told you about playing with character
devices? Heh... nothing, it seems.
When I spoke with Ready-to-Run on the phone, they indicated
that Apache 1.3.4 wasn't a supported platform. As previously noted,
however this doesn't just effect Apache 1.3.4. Ready-to-Run software
was notified of this a week ago via their bug reporting system and by
phone.
Noah Robin
----- End forwarded message -----
Re: Fwd: Frontpage extensions under Apache 1.3.4
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
>
> By no strech of the imagination would I claim that any Apache code
> changes are necessary for this, but it's still interesting.
Interesting? The comment "bloody hell, and they expect us to run their
insane software as root?" springs to mind.
Cheers,
Ben.
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Sitzkrieg Redundus <si...@ONASTICK.NET> -----
>
> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:31:23 -0500
> Reply-To: Sitzkrieg Redundus <si...@ONASTICK.NET>
> From: Sitzkrieg Redundus <si...@ONASTICK.NET>
> Subject: Frontpage extensions under Apache 1.3.4
> To: BUGTRAQ@NETSPACE.ORG
>
> I spent the bulk my time a few days back convincing the Frontpage 98
> extensions and Apache 1.3.4 (patched with patch version 3.0.4.3) to play
> nicely. After banging my head against it for a few hours, I got things to
> what I thought was a workable point, and fired up httpd. And got an error
> back about there being a syntax error on line 1 of /dev/null.
>
> *blink*
>
> By default, Apache 1.3.4 places all runtime directives in httpd.conf, and
> leaves srm.conf and access.conf empty.
>
> >From the default httpd.conf:
>
> " You can have the server ignore these files altogether by using
> '/dev/null' (for Unix) or "nul" (for Win32) for the arguments to the
> directives."
>
> Great. Except that when creating a root web, fp_install.sh calls
> fpsrvadm.exe, which moves the file specified by the "ResourceConfig"
> directive "file.bak" and installs its own. Thus, on systems running the
> Apache 1.3.4 where the user has followed the advice in the
> httpd.conf (or
> *any* Apache install which points ResourceConfig and AccessConfig to
> /dev/null for that matter) we see before:
>
> stanis# ls -la /dev/null
> crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1, 3 Feb 4 16:35 /dev/null
>
> and after:
>
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 root root 67 Feb 4 17:56 /dev/null
> crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1, 3 Feb 4 16:35 /dev/null.bak
>
> Silly fpsrvadm.... what have we told you about playing with character
> devices? Heh... nothing, it seems.
>
> When I spoke with Ready-to-Run on the phone, they indicated
> that Apache 1.3.4 wasn't a supported platform. As previously noted,
> however this doesn't just effect Apache 1.3.4. Ready-to-Run software
> was notified of this a week ago via their bug reporting system and by
> phone.
>
> Noah Robin
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
Re: Fwd: Frontpage extensions under Apache 1.3.4
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>.
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> By no strech of the imagination would I claim that any Apache code
> changes are necessary for this, but it's still interesting.
The saddest part about the FP extensions for Apache is that Microsoft
(well, or RTR; don't know who actually writes the code) could, if
they took the smallest effort, make them so much more usable.
As someone who is being forced to figure out why they work so badly
and make them work better for two bazillion users (especially since
each machine has a half bazillion vhosts and fp needs a httpd.conf file
to read all the time), they really annoy me.
Doing a strings on the fp binaries is enough to make me shudder.