Mailing List Archive

AddIcon not working? (fwd)
Re: AddIcon not working? (fwd) [ In reply to ]
Um, no, AddIcon works fine, for me at least. What may be confusing
is that we added a bunch of icons and removed others, with the
appropriate defaults changed in the srm.conf-dist. however, older
srm.conf's may be using the older defaults, so I'll add that to the
compatibility page.

Maybe completely removing the xbm's was a mistake?

Brian

On Tue, 8 Aug 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:
> I've confirmed this one...
>
> Forwarded message:
>
> > From daniel@sron.RUG.NL Tue Aug 8 06:45:42 1995
> > Date: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 15:44:52 +0200
> > From: Daniel Kussendrager <daniel@sron.RUG.NL>
> > Subject: AddIcon not working?
> > Sender: daniel@sron.RUG.NL
> > To: apache-bugs@apache.org
> > Message-id: <9508081344.AA07748@sron.rug.nl>
> > Organization: Space Research Organization Netherlands
> > X-Envelope-to: apache-bugs@apache.org
> > MIME-version: 1.0
> > X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 5.4 sun4m)
> > Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> > X-Url: http://www.apache.org/
> >
> > Dear Apache developers,
> >
> > After playing a bit with Apache 0.8.8 I've come to the conclusion that
> > either I'm completely stupid or the AddIcon directive doesn't work.
> > The srm.conf file promises nice gif images for compressed, uuencoded,
> > and binary files, among others. Yet instead of that I get the DefaultIcon
> > for each of those files when requesting a FancyIndexed file. The impression
> > that it might be an Apache problem is confirmed by your own
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/dist/
> >
> > which seems to suffer from the same problem.
> > I _will_ dive into the code to try to find out what's wrong, but I've
> > already seen that mod_dir is not trivial.
> >
> > One other comment: the default for DefaultIcon directive in the file
> > srm.conf-dist is unknown.xbm, which is not in the distribution anymore.
> >
> > Last remark: Apache is great :)
> >
> > Daniel
> > --
> > Daniel Kussendrager Space Research Organization Netherlands
> > P.O. Box 800
> > daniel@sron.rug.nl 9700 AV Groningen, NL
> > +31 50 634799 (phone) +31 50 634033 (fax)
>

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/
Re: AddIcon not working? (fwd) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 8 Aug 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:
> I couldn't get a cute icon for a .tar.gz file even when I pasted the
> srm.conf-dist lines into my existing srm.conf.
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/ shows "unkown.gif" for .tar.gz even though
> there's a
>
> AddIcon /icons/tar.gif .tar.gz .tar.Z
>
> It doesn't show on apache.org or my local machine.
>
> more rocket science ?

Ack, you're right. Okay, time to edit known_bugs.html....

Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/
Re: AddIcon not working? (fwd) [ In reply to ]
Ding ding ding ding..... +1

Brian

On Tue, 8 Aug 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:
> Here's a possible fix for the AddIcon bug.
>
> *** mod_dir.c.old Tue Aug 8 22:58:59 1995
> --- mod_dir.c Tue Aug 8 22:55:26 1995
> ***************
> *** 223,229 ****
> #define DIR_CMD_PERMS OR_INDEXES
>
> command_rec dir_cmds[] = {
> ! { "AddIcon", add_icon, BY_TYPE, DIR_CMD_PERMS, ITERATE2,
> ! "an icon URL followed by one or more MIME types" },
> { "AddIconByType", add_icon, BY_TYPE, DIR_CMD_PERMS, ITERATE2,
> "an icon URL followed by one or more MIME types" },
> --- 223,229 ----
> #define DIR_CMD_PERMS OR_INDEXES
>
> command_rec dir_cmds[] = {
> ! { "AddIcon", add_icon, BY_PATH, DIR_CMD_PERMS, ITERATE2,
> ! "an icon URL followed by one or more file extensions" },
> { "AddIconByType", add_icon, BY_TYPE, DIR_CMD_PERMS, ITERATE2,
> "an icon URL followed by one or more MIME types" },
>
>
>
>

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/
Re: AddIcon not working? (fwd) [ In reply to ]
> Um, no, AddIcon works fine, for me at least. What may be confusing
> is that we added a bunch of icons and removed others, with the
> appropriate defaults changed in the srm.conf-dist. however, older
> srm.conf's may be using the older defaults, so I'll add that to the
> compatibility page.
>
> Maybe completely removing the xbm's was a mistake?

Hmmm,

I couldn't get a cute icon for a .tar.gz file even when I pasted the
srm.conf-dist lines into my existing srm.conf.

http://www.apache.org/dist/ shows "unkown.gif" for .tar.gz even though
there's a

AddIcon /icons/tar.gif .tar.gz .tar.Z


It doesn't show on apache.org or my local machine.


more rocket science ?


rob
Re: AddIcon not working? (fwd) [ In reply to ]
>
> Ack, you're right. Okay, time to edit known_bugs.html....
>

AddIconByEncoding (COMPRESS,/icons/compressed.gif) x-compress x-gzip

works, kind of.
Re: AddIcon not working? (fwd) [ In reply to ]
Here's a possible fix for the AddIcon bug.

*** mod_dir.c.old Tue Aug 8 22:58:59 1995
--- mod_dir.c Tue Aug 8 22:55:26 1995
***************
*** 223,229 ****
#define DIR_CMD_PERMS OR_INDEXES

command_rec dir_cmds[] = {
! { "AddIcon", add_icon, BY_TYPE, DIR_CMD_PERMS, ITERATE2,
! "an icon URL followed by one or more MIME types" },
{ "AddIconByType", add_icon, BY_TYPE, DIR_CMD_PERMS, ITERATE2,
"an icon URL followed by one or more MIME types" },
--- 223,229 ----
#define DIR_CMD_PERMS OR_INDEXES

command_rec dir_cmds[] = {
! { "AddIcon", add_icon, BY_PATH, DIR_CMD_PERMS, ITERATE2,
! "an icon URL followed by one or more file extensions" },
{ "AddIconByType", add_icon, BY_TYPE, DIR_CMD_PERMS, ITERATE2,
"an icon URL followed by one or more MIME types" },
Re: AddIcon not working? (fwd) [ In reply to ]
From: Rob Hartill <hartill@ooo.lanl.gov>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 95 23:00:54 MDT

Here's a possible fix for the AddIcon bug.
[ Changes BY_TYPE to BY_PATH in AddIcon command table entry ]

[ Checks old 0.6.x source directory... ]
Yep. Looks like I blew it here. NB I may have done the same thing
with AddAlt --- could someone check?

Anyway, this patch looks perfectly sensible...

rst