Koen Deforche wrote:
> That's actually not that bad ... it means you've passed a bootstrapped
> application which suggests that you have managed to relay requests to
> the correct process.
Yes, I'm sure you are right, that all these niggles could be sorted out
one way or the other.
>> Attepting to run on the commercial hosting is even less promising. While cgi
>> exectuables work, I don't seem to be able to get the Wt code to run. It's
>> hard to know why, since I don't have access to the apache error log :-(
>
> That is of course hard to work with.
>
> Do you get a simple cgi-fcgi executable to work?
No.
> Have you made sure that the run-directory is in location where you
> have write permissions ?
It's hard to be sure. It looks like I have write permission, but it
simply fails. I would need to instrument up cgi-fcgi to get any
insight as to what fails.
Cheers,
Graeme Gill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
witty-interest mailing list
witty-interest@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
