[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#8223: question about new webstand (was Bug#8223: info2www symlink broken)



> On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> 
> > Package: info2www
> > Version: 1.2.2.9-4
> > 
> > While the webstandard states that http://localhost/doc/ should resolve to
> > files in the /usr/doc directory, it doesn't provide that there needs to be a
> > symlink in /var/www.  The info2www symlink should be to /usr/doc/info2www,
> > not just doc/info2www

At first, I didn't understand what Scott was try to do.  Then I looked at what
info2www tried to do, and it didn't work on my system either - so now I 
understand.

> The problem is that the policy forbids absolute symlinks. That's why I
> can't use `/usr/doc/info2www'.

Correct.  Do the following

drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 Mar 20 15:46 1997 var/
drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 Mar 20 15:46 1997 var/www/
lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 Mar 20 15:46 1997 var/www/info2www -> 
../../usr/doc/info2www

Instead of

drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 Mar 20 15:46 1997 var/
drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 Mar 20 15:46 1997 var/www/
lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 Mar 20 15:46 1997 var/www/info2www -> 
doc/info2www

The problem is, the webservers (even the ones conforming to the web standard) 
do not
have a symlink from /var/www/doc to /usr/doc.

Remember, there are other ways to accomplish having the http://locahost/doc 
directory
pointing to /usr/doc without using symlinks - so the web standard doesn't 
guarantee
that a symlink between /var/www/doc and /usr/doc will exist. 

Personally, I don't really like the idea of having http://localhost/doc 
pointing
at /usr/doc.  Most of the stuff there isn't html -- and if you want to look at
that stuff, dwww will work much better (I'm slightly biased).
 
> But why is /var/www not guaranteed to exist? 

For dwww, I'm creating it, and I'm also putting in a symlink to the location
of the CGI script (in /usr/lib/dwww/dwww.cgi I think) into 
/usr/lib/cgi-bin/dwww and another symlink to /var/lib/dwww/html into the
/var/www (the default document root).

This is consistant with what Chris is doing with info2www.
 
> The Webstandard 3.0 (part of the new policy) says:
> 
> -------
> 3.Web Document Root
> 
>       Web Applications should try to avoid storing files in the Web
> Document Root. Instead use the /usr/doc/<package> directory for documents
> and register the Web Application via the menu package. If access to the
> web-root is unavoidable then use
> 
>       /var/www
> 
>       as the Document Root. This might be just a symlink to the location
> where the sysadmin has put the real document root.
> -------

Since dwww uses dynamically created html, it can't put that stuff under
/usr/doc, so it must create a symlink to /var/lib/dwww/html (actually
../../var/lib/dwww/html for the /var/web directory).  In info2www's
case, it might make sense to put that stuff under /usr/doc since it
is all static.  
 
> It seams to me as all Debian web _servers_ should create ask the user
> where he wants to have the web root and make a symlink to /var/www. 

Huh?  The web root should go wherever the user wants it, but it should
default to /var/www.  Also, the web server, and other debian web 
packages should feel free to create /var/www, /usr/lib/cgi-bin and dump
stuff into them -- since it doesn't create a problem if the user decides
to have their document root elsewhere.

> They
> should also make a symlink /var/www/doc -> ../../usr/doc or tell the web
> server to map URL's with directory /doc/ to /usr/doc/. 

The symlink idea isn't a part of the web standard.  The "mapping" part
is - but if the server does this, then your /var/www/info2www symlink
won't work.
 
> Or do I have to use the new menu system? 

No, I think that is more for indexing bona-fide documentation, as opposed to 
creating consistent URL's to data files referenced by CGI scripts.

I hope this helps.

dwww will miraculously appear in Incoming in a few hours.  :-)

Cheers,

 - Jim



Attachment: pgpVbdSKqQhgp.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: