httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1421184 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/docs/cgi-examples: printenv.vbs printenv.wsf
Date Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:00:40 GMT
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Guenter Knauf <fuankg@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
> Am 15.12.2012 15:00, schrieb Jeff Trawick:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:04 AM, <fuankg@apache.org
>> <mailto:fuankg@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Author: fuankg
>>     Date: Thu Dec 13 10:04:51 2012
>>     New Revision: 1421184
>>
>>     URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?**rev=1421184&view=rev<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1421184&view=rev>
>>     <http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?**rev=1421184&view=rev<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1421184&view=rev>
>> >
>>     Log:
>>     Added Windows CGI samples.
>>
>>     Added:
>>          httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/**docs/cgi-examples/printenv.vbs
>>     (with props)
>>          httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/**docs/cgi-examples/printenv.wsf
>>     (with props)
>>
>>
>> I don't understand why we ship this.
>>
>> If some Windows user wants to find out how to write a CGI script in yet
>> another language they can bing it.
>>
>> We have had a couple of very basic examples from the dark ages of the
>> web, and that is MUCH more than enough IMO, particularly since these
>> particular examples are information leaks as soon as somebody enables
>> them.
>>
> my motivation for these was that the .vbs is like a counterpart to
> test-cgi, and for the .wsf BZ 51359 to show that we dont need another
> shebang test in the code. These samples are in-active same as printenv and
> test-cgi (no active shebang), and if we trust that a Unix admin knows what
> he does when he activates them why dont we trust a Windows admin too?
> If you think those samples are bad remove them again, but then please also
> remove printenv and test-cgi which are basically same.
>
> Gün.
>
>
Here's a compromise.  Use 2.4.x/STATUS to see if you get two more votes to
add the two new CGIs to the 2.4.x install.  If two other people agree, I'll
be quiet.  I know these files are under docs, but changing code that gets
installed should be voted on.  (Even a recent tweak to printenv went
through STATUS.)

I don't think avoiding adding these new features requires removing the
existing, similar ones, though I'm +1 for removing the existing ones from
trunk.

Why can't a tiny example in the documentation show what is needed to have a
script that httpd can execute?  The Windows platform documentation has a
few comments about CGIs and the CGI tutorial documentation has a tiny
amount of Windows information.  Somewhere in there is a reasonable place to
document any Windows-specific issues in this area.

-- 
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/

Mime
View raw message