>>"Brian" == Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I dunno. It seems that policy changes are almost too difficult to even
> try. However, most if not all of the webserver packages I filed the bugs
> against have done this and closed them.
Getting absolutely new, untested, policy
> >> >>"Brian" == Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The original conversation I had waaay back with the webserver guys
> > is that they wouldn't go ahead with these changes until it _was_ official
> > policy. If you require it to be done before it becomes official policy
> > the
>>"Brian" == Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>"Brian" == Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The original conversation I had waaay back with the webserver guys
> is that they wouldn't go ahead with these changes until it _was_ official
> policy. If you require it to be d
> >>"Brian" == Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Brian> Okay... This has been approved and passed all the stages.
> Brian> Would somebody please make the change to the official policy
> Brian> manual so we can move ahead?
>
> Passed all stages? Does that mean that the web se
Hi,
>>"Brian" == Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> Okay... This has been approved and passed all the stages.
Brian> Would somebody please make the change to the official policy
Brian> manual so we can move ahead?
Passed all stages? Does that mean that the web servers have
Okay... This has been approved and passed all the stages. Would somebody
please make the change to the official policy manual so we can move ahead?
Thanks!
Brian
( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
--
> > Have we decided on whether aj's proposed changes (below) are
> > what we reached a consensus on?
> > ==
> > /usr/lib/cgi-bin/
> >
> > ~wwwdata/cgi-bin/
> > > postinst
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 05:34:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Have we decided on whether aj's proposed changes (below) are
> what we reached a consensus on?
> ==
> /usr/lib/cgi-bin/
>
>
Hi,
Fine. Y'all have convinced me that the proposed solution is
correct, and we do not need to provide distinct name spaces for
system vs user scripts.
Have we decided on whether aj's proposed changes (below) are
what we reached a consensus on?
===
> I don't see any value to letting the guy browsing your website be able
> to tell the difference between local CGI scripts and remote ones though.
> It seems beneficial not to, even, so you can have replace your homebrew
> build of http://example.com/cgi-bin/analog with the prepackaged version,
>
> >> Yes. But the scripts still live in ~www-data/cgi-bin, right?
> >> If not, I missed when you are going to have packages move the scripts
> >> out.
>
> Brian> All system scripts would live under /usr/lib/cgi-bin and be
> Brian> accessed via /cgi-lib. To make for a smooth
> Brian> transit
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 12:13:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Would it not be a desirable goal to ultimately have the users
> using the /cgi-lib for system scripts, and /cgi-bin for local
> scripts, and have distinct name spaces?
I don't see why?
There are two reasons for name space
>>"Brian" == Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> No, I mean that /cgi-lib should point to
Brian> /usr/lib/cgi-bin and /cgi-bin should point to
Brian> ~www-data/cgi-bin. The latter is what webmaster expect or, at
Brian> the very least, they expect to be able to control
Brian> /cgi-
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> The above would also seem like it would break people's websites and
Anthony> bookmarks, a bit, which would seem undesirable.
Anthony> What would y'all think about having cgi-bin managed more like, umm:
Anthony> /usr/lib/cgi-bin/
>> packag
> > > What would y'all think about having cgi-bin managed more like, umm:
> > > /usr/lib/cgi-bin/
> > >
> > > ~wwwdata/cgi-bin/
> > > > > postinst,
> > > based on some setting in /etc/ somewhere>
> > This has how I've done my site,
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 11:26:54AM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> > What would y'all think about having cgi-bin managed more like, umm:
> > /usr/lib/cgi-bin/
> >
> > ~wwwdata/cgi-bin/
> > > postinst,
> > based on some setting in /etc/
> > > Perhaps things have changed in the last 3 years, and they
> > > shall understand that post the /usr/doc issue policy has become more
> > > conservative?
> > I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here.
>
> He means the best way to get something in policy is for it to be
> impl
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 10:12:29AM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> > Perhaps things have changed in the last 3 years, and they
> > shall understand that post the /usr/doc issue policy has become more
> > conservative?
> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here.
He means the best way
> Brian> Once it becomes official policy, then I can get them to make the
> Brian> necessary changes. And once the webservers begin to change over,
> Brian> then I can get the packages to change.
>
> Perhaps things have changed in the last 3 years, and they
> shall understand that pos
>>"Brian" == Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> Once it becomes official policy, then I can get them to make the
Brian> necessary changes. And once the webservers begin to change over,
Brian> then I can get the packages to change.
Perhaps things have changed in the last 3
> Brian> What is the next step in moving this in to being official
> Brian> policy? I was told I couldn't request any changes to the
> Brian> various webservers until it was accepted as such.
>
> Quite the contrary. Policy documents current, working
> solutions. We should not make pol
Hi,
>>"Brian" == Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> What is the next step in moving this in to being official
Brian> policy? I was told I couldn't request any changes to the
Brian> various webservers until it was accepted as such.
Quite the contrary. Policy documents curre
(First I get one address wrong, then the other.3rd time...)
What is the next step in moving this in to being official policy? I was
told I couldn't request any changes to the various webservers until it
was accepted as such.
===
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 32263 [PROPOSAL] Splitting cgi-bin
Bug#32263: [OLD PROPOSAL] Split /cgi-bin/ into system and local parts
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs
retitle 32263 [PROPOSAL] Splitting cgi-bin
thanks
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 10:09:39PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> reopen 32263
> --
>
> How about waiting just a bit longer? I was going to try to start this
> again when (if?) the release happens. Numerous people have thought it
> was a good idea
reopen 32263
--
How about waiting just a bit longer? I was going to try to start this
again when (if?) the release happens. Numerous people have thought it
was a good idea, but there have been more important things on the plate.
Brian
26 matches
Mail list logo
