On 9/26/17, David Mason <dma...@ryerson.ca> wrote: > Indeed! Thanks... I already noted that in the web access, but the file does > end in .fossil and I've always used that before when cloning (using the > ssh: access method). Is there a difference in how fossil names are > recognized in ssh: vs http(s): ?
When using http(s), you need to tell the web server the name of the CGI script, not the name of the repository. Apache doesn't know anything about Fossil and has no idea how to deal with it. But Apache does know how to run CGI. When using the ssh: access method, the client uses the "ssh" command to run "fossil server $repo" on the remote side, where $repo is the name of the repository as specified in the URL. In this case, the command being run is "fossil" and it does know how to deal directly with a repository. Hence, ssh: is a little different from https: in that ssh: wants the name of the repository whereas https: wants the name of the CGI script. Note that it is usually undesirable to download the repository file directly, as the repository contains additional information such as usernames and password hashes and log files that should normally be kept private. If you ever do need to share a Fossil repository with an untrusted third party, first make a copy of the repo, then run the "fossil scrub" command on the copy in order to remove all sensitive information. Share the copy, not the original. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
