Re: Package cgi-scripts : bugs easy, but is it worth ?
On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 01:25:44AM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 11:24:18PM +0100, Thierry Laronde wrote:
> > [...]
> > 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.)
*blush* well... seconded ;) But I was badly impressionned by scripts which
seem directly extracted from the first page of a book about CGI. An example
can be of some help, but *with the documentation*, as you say :
> > 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.
OK. So, as a kind of synthesis :
- a package cgi-scripts [ ok : natural name] *may* be of some use ;
- but, today, the package named that way is almost useless, or even dangerous;
So, can it be pushed form orphaned to withdrawned ? I will build a new one.
website : http://www.polynum.com