durusmail: quixote-users: Overlaying a static directory
Overlaying a static directory
2005-04-11
2005-04-12
2005-04-12
2005-04-12
2005-04-13
2005-04-13
2005-04-14
2005-04-14
2005-04-14
2005-04-14
2005-04-14
2005-04-14
2005-04-14
2005-04-14
2005-04-14
2005-04-14
David Binger (3 parts)
2005-04-14
2005-04-14
2005-04-13
2005-04-14
2005-04-14
2005-04-13
SCGI util.
2005-04-12
2005-04-13
2005-04-13
2005-04-13
2005-04-13
Overlaying a static directory
David Binger
2005-04-12
On Apr 11, 2005, at 9:34 PM, mso@oz.net wrote:

>> Are you using Apache2 with mod_scgi?
>
> Yes.  On Linux, if that matters.

I don't think the Apache2 mod_scgi is reliable.  Whenever I
have tried it I have had similarly unexpected behavior.
I bet this will work fine if you can change back to Apache1 or
if you can get the cgi2scgi working.

>
>> Also, have you noticed the cgi2scgi program in mod_scgi?  That seems
>> like
>> an attractive alternative, and it allows for handling several requests
>> at a time.

>
> That immediately gives a "Premature end of script headers" in the
> Apache
> log with no further explanation, and no messages in the Quixote access
> log

Is the cgi2scgi executable executable?  Did you compile it with
the -DPORT=9999 flag if your scgi server is listening on port 9999?
Is the scgi server running and listening on the port you expect?
Is anything in the scgi server's log?

> or error log.  I also tried FastCGI, and that works once but then hangs
> for further requests.  But either of these also causes problems with my
> URLs coz I'd need to use mod_rewrite to hide the /cgi-bin/app.cgi2scgi
> or
> ..fcg prefix, and then the redirects in my application put the
> /cgi-bin...

ScriptAlias "/" "/cgi-bin/app.cgi2scgi"
can run everything to your applicaiton.
I think it is possible to do this without mod_rewrite.

> prefix back in because it's part of the script_name.  Sigh.  Would
> anyone
> feel like modifying scgi.c to dump the headers and part of the body to
> a
> file before passing them them to Apache?  It looks like my only other
> alternative is to go back to the old way with Basic Authentication.


reply