Hello, On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 01:25:44AM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 11:24:18PM +0100, Thierry Laronde wrote: > > [...] > > > > Actually, 75% of the scripts seem to be here just to exaggerate the size of > > the package : archie | fortune | finger | uptime | calendar | date are > > basic Bourne Shell scripts invoking a command ! > > But potentially nice examples. test-env is really helpful.
>[..] > > test-cgi and nph-test-cgi are, really, the same script ( two lines of header > > is the difference). > > Yes, but note the names: they are test scripts to test that the CGI > handler works on the two different types of scripts: normal ones and > NPH (non-parsed headers) ones. The names are significant as well: > nph- prefix indicates non-parsed headers, and woe betide anyone who > confuses such things! (I know: been there, done it.) *blush* well... seconded ;) But I was badly impressionned by scripts which seem directly extracted from the first page of a book about CGI. An example can be of some help, but *with the documentation*, as you say : > > Plus, there are pieces of c programs in /usr/doc/cgi-scripts ( I'm still on > > Slink :-^), that seem of some use, but the programs are not compiled at > > installation time, and there is absolutely no documentation. > > Time to write some! And to decide whether it's worth doing so. OK. So, as a kind of synthesis : - a package cgi-scripts [ ok : natural name] *may* be of some use ; - but, today, the package named that way is almost useless, or even dangerous; So, can it be pushed form orphaned to withdrawned ? I will build a new one. Best regs, -- Thierry LARONDE [EMAIL PROTECTED] website : http://www.polynum.com
