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

Bug#32263: Proposal: Splitting cgi-bin



Now that we're getting ready for a new release, I'd like to implement
this new policy in the new development stream.  Here is the text I plan
to include in the necessary bug reports I'll submit.

I don't forsee any difficulties with the upgrade path.  Please let me
know if you think I missed something.

----- ----- -----

There is new Debian policy regarding the use of "cgi-bin" in web servers.
The basic issue is that many webmasters expect to have this directory
available for their own use and not have it taken over by the system to be
used by the various Debian packages.  This new policy should be in complete
effect by the release of Debian 2.4.

I've started the change by reporting bugs against the various web servers
and then later, after they've had a chance to address it, I'll report bugs
against those packages that still use the old location.

To address this, we are creating a new ScriptAlias "cgi-lib" that points to
/usr/lib/cgi-bin.  All Debian packages should eventually use that new
"/cgi-lib/" path in their URLs instead of the older "/cgi-bin/".  This
mechanism does allow for an easy upgrade path.

When updating a web server, the new "cgi-lib" needs to be added, but any
existing definition of "cgi-bin" should be left untouched.  (New installs
should set "cgi-bin" to point to <webroot>/cgi-bin.)  Systems with upgraded
web-servers will continue to work with the older packages (since both
"cgi-bin" and "cgi-lib" point to the same place), thus providing a
hopefully-transparent conversion.

For more information, please see the original bug report:

  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=32263&repeatmerged=yes

----- ----- -----

                                          Brian
                                  ( bcwhite@pobox.com )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Don't drink and park.  Accidents cause kids.



Reply to: