Re: Package cgi-scripts : bugs easy, but is it worth ?
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 11:24:18PM +0100, Thierry Laronde wrote:
> I'm having a look to a few orphaned packages, including cgi-scripts.
> Actually, 75% of the scripts seem to be here just to exaggerate the size of
> the package : archie | fortune | finger | uptime | calendar | date are
> basic Bourne Shell scripts invoking a command !
But potentially nice examples. test-env is really helpful.
> test-cgi and nph-test-cgi are, really, the same script ( two lines of header
> is the difference).
Yes, but note the names: they are test scripts to test that the CGI
handler works on the two different types of scripts: normal ones and
NPH (non-parsed headers) ones. The names are significant as well:
nph- prefix indicates non-parsed headers, and woe betide anyone who
confuses such things! (I know: been there, done it.)
> wais.pl seems useless.
> Plus, there are pieces of c programs in /usr/doc/cgi-scripts ( I'm still on
> Slink :-^), that seem of some use, but the programs are not compiled at
> installation time, and there is absolutely no documentation.
Time to write some! And to decide whether it's worth doing so.
> But this would be something else, and I'm not quite sure that
> cgi-scripts would
> be a very good name ( cgi-programs would be better).
How many people would think of cgi-programs? Even if there are
compiled ones, I think "scripts" is the more well-known name.
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/