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

Re: a couple (cgi) packaging issues



On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:52:18PM -0500, sean finney wrote:
> > (Doesn't the stderr from CGI scripts go to the web server's error log
> > file anyway? I don't recall seeing a CGI script with its own log file
> > before, but I suppose it could make sense if a lot of data is being
> > logged.)
> 
> yeah, stderr does, but i didn't write the package, i'm just trying to
> debianize it, and that's how the author has written it.

Sugarplum's logs were more important back when it had functionality the
server admin might explicitly want to be notified about (DoS'ing the
spider), and when events could occur that didn't match up well with the 
webserver's access log (e.g. randomized agent detection.)

The functionality is still there mainly for non-admin users who don't
have access to their own logs, and a hedge against webservers who don't
provide useful logging.  For a while at least, pre-iPlanet Netscape
webservers would consider a CGI to have failed if it produced anything
on stderr.  None of this is particularly applicable to Debian's use.


Upstreamily,

-- 
Devin  \ aqua(at)devin.com, 1024D/E9ABFCD2;  http://www.devin.com
Carraway \ IRC: Requiem  GCS/CC/L s-:--- !a !tv C++++$ ULB+++$ O+@ P L+++

Attachment: pgpv0E96EVUfn.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: