Re: [fossil-users] CGI issues
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Michal Suchanek hramr...@centrum.czwrote: I tried installing fossil as CGI on Apache 1.3 and there is some difference form what is in the docs. Firstly I had to use a script like this: #!/path-to-fossil/fossil cgi repository: /path-to-repo.fossil Note the cgi parameter. Without that the server would just report an internal error. Is your script named something.cgi? i've sometimes had problems (on Apache 1.3) with the web server requiring that extension (but it is configurable). Is the cgi feature well tested? i host more than a dozen sites with it and haven't had any problems at all. Did anybody else try with Apache 1.3? I don't have access to the server logs so I am not sure what is going on when something breaks. Apache 1.3 has been obsoleted since... 8 years (April 6, 2002, according to Google). Perhaps it's time to change hosters? -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] CGI issues
On 20 May 2010 08:58, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Michal Suchanek hramr...@centrum.cz wrote: I tried installing fossil as CGI on Apache 1.3 and there is some difference form what is in the docs. Firstly I had to use a script like this: #!/path-to-fossil/fossil cgi repository: /path-to-repo.fossil Note the cgi parameter. Without that the server would just report an internal error. Is your script named something.cgi? i've sometimes had problems (on Apache 1.3) with the web server requiring that extension (but it is configurable). Well, if it required the suffix it would just serve the source, right? Is the cgi feature well tested? i host more than a dozen sites with it and haven't had any problems at all. Did anybody else try with Apache 1.3? I don't have access to the server logs so I am not sure what is going on when something breaks. Apache 1.3 has been obsoleted since... 8 years (April 6, 2002, according to Google). Perhaps it's time to change hosters? I somewhat like this setup as it uses a central server and a bunch of quite powerful machines that run the scripts. And I can see why they did not upgrade the server. Apache 1.3 works, 2.0 does not offer any additional features for CGI configurations and it is not patched to support this setup. Still putting the repository elsewhere is an option. Thanks Michal ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] CGI issues
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Michal Suchanek hramr...@centrum.czwrote: Is the cgi feature well tested? The whole fossil website at http://www.fossil-scm.org/ is an instance of fossil running as CGI. (But not off of Apache 1.3.) -- - 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
Re: [fossil-users] CGI issues
On 20/05/2010, at 8:30 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Michal Suchanek hramr...@centrum.cz wrote: Is the cgi feature well tested? The whole fossil website at http://www.fossil-scm.org/ is an instance of fossil running as CGI. (But not off of Apache 1.3.) I use it extensively, proxied behind Apache2 (to enforce ssl access) and before Fossil supported ssl I used stunnel fror the same purpose. Steve ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
