Re: general/5520: Design Bug in "Options Indexes" not in Apache/ (fwd)

[Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>]

The following reply was made to PR general/5520; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>
To: Apache bugs database <ap...@apache.org>
Cc:  Subject: Re: general/5520: Design Bug in "Options Indexes" not in Apache/
 (fwd)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:49:07 -0700 (MST)

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:49:46 +0200
 From: Michael Middleton <Mi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
 To: marc@apache.org
 Subject: Re: general/5520: Design Bug in "Options Indexes" not in Apache/
 
 > Date:          30 Dec 1999 16:26:34 -0000
 > To:            apache-bugdb@apache.org, marc@apache.org,
 >                michael.middleton@rz.uni-regensburg.de
 > From:          marc@apache.org
 > Subject:       Re: general/5520: Design Bug in "Options Indexes" not in Apache/1.3.4
 
 > [In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ]
 > [you need to include <ap...@Apache.Org> in the Cc line ]
 > [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED.  This is not done]
 > [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ]
 > [If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig-   ]
 > [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ]
 > [from a developer.                                      ]
 > [Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS!         ]
 > 
 > 
 > Synopsis: Design Bug in "Options Indexes" not in Apache/1.3.4
 > 
 > State-Changed-From-To: open-feedback
 > State-Changed-By: marc
 > State-Changed-When: Thu Dec 30 08:26:31 PST 1999
 > State-Changed-Why:
 > Erm... you have never been able to set "Options +Indexes"
 > without AllowOverride Options set.  You almost certainly
 > had some other config difference between the two servers
 > (since there appear to be a lot of differences other than
 > one running 1.3.4 and one running 1.3.9).  The most likely
 > cause is that the section you quote from the old server
 > didn't apply to what you think it did, ie. the location where
 > you could do this.
 > 
 > The same thing is probably true for PHP and IncludesNOExec.
 > Exactly what do you get in the error log when you try, and
 > exactly how is php configured on each machine?  There are
 > a bunch of ways to enable php support in your config file,
 > and different ones work in different ways.
 > 
 > 
 
 Of course you're right. I had an "allowOverride all" that I overlooked. 
 Sorry!!
 
 Still I'd like a little more fine control over the options in future 
 versions.
 
 Again my apologies for the mistake. Next time I'll try to check my facts 
 more carefully before I send an error report.
 
 Greetings 
 Mike Middleton
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Michael Middleton               
 RZ der Universitaet Regensburg
 93040 REGENSBURG            Tel: +49-941/943-4890
 F R Germany