One more thing Matt, before I ask on the apache mailing 
list:

Can you check your apache error_log please, and see if it 
says that php is starting ok.

This is what it says in my Apache 2.2.0 error_log when it 
starts up:

[Sun Mar 12 05:52:45 2006] [info] mod_unique_id: using ip 
addr 10.0.0.1
[Sun Mar 12 05:52:46 2006] [notice] Digest: generating 
secret for digest authentication ...
[Sun Mar 12 05:52:46 2006] [notice] Digest: done
[Sun Mar 12 05:52:46 2006] [info] mod_unique_id: using ip 
addr 10.0.0.1
[Sun Mar 12 05:52:47 2006] [notice] Apache/2.2.0 (Unix) 
PHP/5.1.2 configured
 -- resuming normal operations

What do you have in your error_log?

Keith

In theory, theory and practice are the same;
In practice they are not. 

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> To: php-install@lists.php.net
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PHP-INSTALL] php returning completely empty documents on new
>     apache install
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like apache may not be loading the php5 module.
> 
> This is why I asked you to get Apache to show what the 
> server signature was returning.
> 
> I think you need to find a way to establish whether the php5 
> module is being loaded or not. I'm not sure if mod_info will 
> return this.
> 
> Let me ask on the httpd mailing list how to do this.
> 
> I'll get back to you then.
> 
> Keith
> 
> In theory, theory and practice are the same;
> In practice they are not. 
> 
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Matt G. wrote:
> 
> > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: Matt G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-INSTALL] php returning completely empty documents on new
> >     apache install
> > 
> > Thanks for the great suggestions.  We might be getting a bit closer here...
> > 
> > 1) I did find that doc_root was not set in my php.ini so I filled it in and
> > pointed it to my apache htdocs directory
> > 2) Error logging was turned on in php.ini but I expanded it to include
> > E_STRICT
> > 3) Error logging to a file was not turned on in php.ini so I turned it on.
> > No errors have showed up in the logfile I specified.
> > 4) expose_php is turned on as well as the ServerTokens and ServerSignature
> > lines you gave.  Unfortunately, when I view a 404 URL, apache identifies
> > itselv, but does NOT say anything about php.  This led me to believe that
> > somehow my php.ini was not getting read.  I tried pointing $PHPRC directly
> > to my php.ini and restarting the apache server but this didn't change
> > anything.  Somehow I still suspect that my php.ini is not getting found so
> > I'm going to fool around with that now.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 14/03/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Something else Matt.
> > >
> > > Are you using the short php open tags - like <? <%
> > > instead of the full <?php open tag?
> > >
> > > If so then php will ignore any embeded php code unless you
> > > use the full <?php to switch to php mode.
> > >
> > > ;;php.ini extract
> > > ; whether PHP may add its signature to the Web server header
> > > expose_php = YES
> > >
> > > ; Allow ASP-style <% %> tags.
> > > asp_tags = OFF
> > >
> > > ; Allow the <? tag.  Otherwise, only <?php and <script> tags
> > > are recognized.
> > > short_open_tag = OFF
> > >
> > > Another thing, when you do a directory listing, or generate
> > > a 404 apache error, does Apache return the php version as
> > > part of the server signature?
> > >
> > > You can check this by setting expose_php = YES iniphp.ini,
> > > and in httpd.conf, setting:
> > >
> > > ServerTokens Full
> > > ServerSignature On
> > >
> > > This should show you if php is loaded into apache OK.
> > >
> > > Keith
> > >
> > > In theory, theory and practice are the same;
> > > In practice they are not.
> > >
> > > On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Matt G. wrote:
> > >
> > > > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > From: Matt G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Subject: [SPAM] Re: [PHP-INSTALL] php returning completely empty
> > > documents on
> > > >     new apache install
> > > >
> > > > Yes, compiled against apache 1.3.34.  I never even downloaded a
> > > 2.xversion...
> > > >
> > > > One non-standard thing I'm doing is running apache under my personal
> > > user
> > > > account on this machine.  (I don't have root)  But I wouldn't think that
> > > > should be a problem.  Is it possible that php is somehow running into a
> > > > permission denied problem?  I've checked file permissions and ownerships
> > > > pretty thoroughly and don't see anything amiss.
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 13/03/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is really strange cause normally php works just fine!
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you compiled php5 against Apache 1.3.34, and not a
> > > > > 2.0.xx version Matt?
> > > > >
> > > > > Keith
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Matt G. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > From: Matt G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > Subject: [SPAM] Re: [PHP-INSTALL] Re: [SPAM] Re: [PHP-INSTALL] php
> > > > > returning
> > > > > >     completely empty documents on new apache install
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Err...my mistake, I am using apache 1.3.34.  Not sure why I said 
> > > > > > 2.0in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > original message.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/03/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is it because you are using the AddModule directive.
> > > > > > > I think that is only used in Apache 1.3.x series.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is all I have in my httpd.conf for loading the php
> > > > > > > module.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ##LoadModule speling_module          modules/mod_speling.so
> > > > > > > ##LoadModule userdir_module          modules/mod_userdir.so
> > > > > > > LoadModule alias_module              modules/mod_alias.so
> > > > > > > ##LoadModule rewrite_module          modules/mod_rewrite.so
> > > > > > > LoadModule php5_module               modules/libphp5.so
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Keith
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In theory, theory and practice are the same;
> > > > > > > In practice they are not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Matt G. wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Matt G.
> > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [SPAM] Re: [PHP-INSTALL]
> > > > > > > > php returning completely empty documents on
> > > > > > > >     new apache install
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Keith,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestions.  I had already tried the
> > > > > > > > phpinfo() call and it results in the same thing as my
> > > > > > > > hello world, just a 0 byte document returned from the
> > > > > > > > webserver.  The apache install is essentially working
> > > > > > > > correctly, it returns .html docs just fine.  Also, I
> > > > > > > > checked those php.ini keywords and they are both set to
> > > > > > > > on.  (in fact I'm using the exact sample php.ini that came
> > > > > > > > with the source distribution.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm completely stumped...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 11/03/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Try calling the following as a php file:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <?php
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > phpinfo();
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ?>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's only 3 lines, but that returns alot of information for
> > > > > > > > > debugging your php installation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do you have the following directives set in php.ini?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ; Enable the PHP scripting language engine under Apache.
> > > > > > > > > engine = ON
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ; whether PHP may add its signature to the Web server header
> > > > > > > > > expose_php = YES
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can you return a plain html document with Apache?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If not, is your apache DocRoot setup correctly?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Keith
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In theory, theory and practice are the same;
> > > > > > > > > In practice they are not.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, Matt G. wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To: php-install@lists.php.net From: Matt G.
> > > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PHP-INSTALL] php
> > > > > > > > > > returning completely empty documents on new apache
> > > > > > > > > >     install
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I just built the latest apache 2.0 and php5 (shared
> > > > > > > > > > apache module) on a linux 2.6.5 box.  After doing all
> > > > > > > > > > of the setup from the INSTALL file,
> > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > unable to get a php hello world to work!  (Well, I get it to
> > > > > work
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > CLI, but not through my web browser)  The apache
> > > > > > > > > > server just returns a 0 byte document.  No errors come
> > > > > > > > > > out in the apache logs and it says the document was
> > > > > > > > > > sent with a http 200 status.  It is as if the php
> > > > > > > > > interpreter
> > > > > > > > > > is not getting called.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > When the apache server starts up, it logs that php is in
> > > fact
> > > > > > > > > configured:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [Sat Mar 11 16:06:51 2006] [notice] Apache/1.3.34 (Unix)
> > > > > PHP/5.1.2
> > > > > > > > > > configured -- resuming normal operations
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I believe I have the correct lines in my httpd.conf:
> > > > > > > > > > LoadModule php5_module        libexec/libphp5.so
> > > > > > > > > > AddModule mod_php5.c
> > > > > > > > > >     DirectoryIndex index.html index.php
> > > > > > > > > > AddType application/x-httpd-php .php .phtml
> > > > > > > > > > AddType application/x-httpd-php-source .phps
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Does anybody have any suggestions for how I can dig into
> > > this
> > > > > > > further?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> 

Reply via email to