Mailing List Archive: compatibility non-problem

compatibility non-problem

Aug 16, 1995, 8:42 AM

Post #1 of 4 (260 views)

A local user installed Apache yesterday. He's been running a server
almost since day 1 of the web, and has some old settings from NCSA.

One of the settings was

OldScriptAlias

which we don't support.

It's no big deal because he's probably one of only a handful of
people still using it, and he's forced to fix his scripts now anyway
because they are so out of date wrt HTML,

<HEADER></HEADER> etc

So he's going to switch to CGI as well.

Oh, and he also got tripped up by the special treatment of "."
(another of my old gripes). His

DirectoryIndex .index.html

had the first "." ignored, presumably treated as whitespace.

rob
--
http://nqcd.lanl.gov/~hartill/

Re: compatibility non-problem [ In reply to ]

efrank at ncsa

Aug 16, 1995, 7:58 AM

Post #2 of 4 (247 views)

Permalink

FYI, in NCSA Release 1.5 OldScriptAlias is no longer supported.
We thought we were the only ones with some of the old version
scripts around.

Elizabeth(Beth) Frank
NCSA Server Development Team
efrank@ncsa.uiuc.edu

On Aug 16, 8:42am, Rob Hartill wrote:
} Subject: compatibility non-problem
>
> A local user installed Apache yesterday. He's been running a server
> almost since day 1 of the web, and has some old settings from NCSA.
>
> One of the settings was
>
> OldScriptAlias
>
> which we don't support.
>
> It's no big deal because he's probably one of only a handful of
> people still using it, and he's forced to fix his scripts now anyway
> because they are so out of date wrt HTML,
>
> <HEADER></HEADER> etc
>
> So he's going to switch to CGI as well.
>
}-- End of excerpt from Rob Hartill

Re: compatibility non-problem [ In reply to ]

hartill at ooo

Aug 16, 1995, 9:53 AM

Post #3 of 4 (246 views)

Permalink

> Hmmm... If I remember right, the special-case treatment of '.' that bugged
> you was for AddType and AddEncoding;

Yup, and I still think that a '.' should be taken literally. That
way one could choose between .gif and -gif extensions for example.

Does the following look reasonable ?

gif matches with fred.gif ^[a-zA-Z0-9] -> add a "."
.gif fred.gif
..gif fred..gif
-gif fred-gif

> the code which does it is in the
> handlers for those commands, and should not in any way be interfering with
> DirectoryIndex.

I haven't looked so I could be guilty of pointing a finger at the
wrong bit of code. The bug is still there though :-)

> Of course it's entirely possible that something else is
> causing problems...

My friend also tried ".index.html" which should work because of the
""s. The ""s should be read as use all of the contents.

--
http://nqcd.lanl.gov/~hartill/

Re: compatibility non-problem [ In reply to ]

rst at ai

Aug 16, 1995, 11:18 AM

Post #4 of 4 (246 views)

Permalink

Hmmm... If I remember right, the special-case treatment of '.' that bugged
you was for AddType and AddEncoding; the code which does it is in the
handlers for those commands, and should not in any way be interfering with
DirectoryIndex. Of course it's entirely possible that something else is
causing problems...

rst