> Brian> This this has now passed the first step of a policy change,
> Brian> I'm changing the bug title and severity. Sorry for the
> Brian> delay... I hadn't realized what I had to do.
>
> The one problem I see with this proposal is that it does not
> put into place any transition strategy for either web servers, and
> packages that ptocide cgi-bin scripts.
That's a good point. I'm not how urgent it is, though, since packages
are generally not inter-dependant.
Until a package got fixed, it would still try to use the "cgi-bin"
directory, which would be correct because that is where it was storing
it's binaries. When the package changed and started using "cgi-lib",
then it would be storing its scripts there, too.
The difficulty is if PackageA is referencing a URL ".../cgi-bin/progB.cgi"
that is provide by PackageB. If either of these update without the
other, then they would break.
I guess the first question is: how many of the latter case is there?
> The best path may be to get the http server packages to add in
> the new script directory as an alias, and then put the change in
> policy as a recommendation, and, later, when most packages have had a
> chance to change, we can put into policy the current working.
Yes. None of the "work" packages could make this change until the
web server packages were updated.
> We need some one to take the lead on getting this conversion
> process underway; perhaps the sponsor of this proposal can do that?
That would be me. <smile>
Brian
( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seize the moment! Live now. Make "now" always the most important time. -- JLP
