Bug#32263: Splitting CGI-BIN
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 12:13:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Would it not be a desirable goal to ultimately have the users
> using the /cgi-lib for system scripts, and /cgi-bin for local
> scripts, and have distinct name spaces?
I don't see why?
There are two reasons for name spaces: you need one so that packages
can dump their files on the filesystem without having to worry about
overwriting users' CGI scripts. You also need a namespace so you can
decide which scripts are available for the webserver -- this might be a
full hierarchy, effectively, if you're serving different web sites and
want different CGI scripts available on each.
I don't see any value to letting the guy browsing your website be able
to tell the difference between local CGI scripts and remote ones though.
It seems beneficial not to, even, so you can have replace your homebrew
build of http://example.com/cgi-bin/analog with the prepackaged version,
without having to do any work or put any thought into it.
Maybe I don't understand the cases where you want to have a link to
a CGI script in a package, though? Perhaps the real problem comes when
dealing with subsystems that happen to be operated through CGI scripts --
linuxconf or similar things do that, don't they? I'm not really seeing any
cases where that's a nuisance to deal with, but I don't use such things,
so maybe that's where I'm missing something?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Reply to: