[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 21/10/98 16:55:17
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: William Smith WS)
Subject: Re: os-windows/3261: Does not execute binary executable files
(.exe)
[In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ]
[you need to include <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: Does not execute binary executable files (.exe)
State-Changed-From-To: open-feedback
State-Changed-By: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
State-Changed-When: Wed Oct 21 06:55:15 PDT 1998
State-Changed-Why:
What Win32 system are you using (e.g. Windows NT, Win95,
Win98)? When apache starts what is the specific release
number (e.g. 1.3.3, 1.3.4 dev)?
Are you executing from the cgi-bin directory?
Is ScriptAlias set up correctly? Is the CGI 16-bit or
32-bit?
The actual release is 1.3.3, downloaded last Friday from Apache's web site.
The OS is Windows 95
The execution was done from the CGI-BIN directory. (Perl scripts work from
the same directory.)
The program is a DOS command-line program, compiled with an old Borland Dos
compiler, so
it is 16 bit. It works outside of the Apache environment on the same
computer.
Next week I can try it with the latest Borland C++ compiler, as I have
ordered it.
Should Apache for Windows 32 execute scripts based on what the file
extension is associated
with in the Windows OS, or should it use the UNIX #!/path/to/interpreter
convention? Or either/or?
Bill
