diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/bugs/CGI_problem_with_some_webservers.mdwn')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/bugs/CGI_problem_with_some_webservers.mdwn | 39 |
1 files changed, 39 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/bugs/CGI_problem_with_some_webservers.mdwn b/doc/bugs/CGI_problem_with_some_webservers.mdwn index a40a454c1..e4b0fd448 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/CGI_problem_with_some_webservers.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/CGI_problem_with_some_webservers.mdwn @@ -67,3 +67,42 @@ Why do they appear two times with conflicting values in the very same hashes? >>>> (reported as [[!debbug 437927]] and [[!debbug 437932]]) --[[JeremieKoenig]] Marking [[done]] since it's not really an ikiwiki bug. --[[Joey]] + +---- + +I'm using boa and getting some odd behaviour if I don't set the `umask` +option in the config file. Editing a page through the web interface and +hitting "Save Page" regenerates the `index.html` file with no world-read +permissions. As a result, the server serves a "403 - Forbidden" error page +instead of the page I was expecting to return to. + +There are only two ways I found to work around this: adding a `umask 022` +option to the config file, or re-compiling the wiki from the command line +using `ikiwiki --setup`. Setting up a git back-end and re-running `ikiwiki +--setup` from inside a hook had no effect; it needed to be at the terminal. +--Paul + +> Since others seem to have gotten ikiwiki working with boa, +> I'm guessing that this is not a generic problem with boa, but that +> your boa was started from a shell that had an unusual umask and inherited +> that. --[[Joey]] + +>> That's right; once I'd worked out what was wrong, it was clear that any +>> webserver should have been refusing to serve the page. I agree about the +>> inherited umask; I hadn't expected that. Even if it's unusual, though, it +>> probably won't be uncommon - this was a stock Ubuntu 9.04 install. --Paul + +(I'm new to wiki etiquette - would it be more polite to leave these details +on the wiki, or to remove them and only leave a short summary? Thanks. +--Paul) + +> Well, I just try to keep things understandable and clear, whether than +> means deleting bad old data or not. That said, this page is a bug report, +> that was already closed. It's generally better to open a new bug report +> rather than edit an old closed one. --[[Joey]] + +>> Thanks for the feedback, I've tidied up my comment accordingly. I see +>> your point about the bug; sorry for cluttering the page up. I doubt it's +>> worth opening a new page at this stage, but will do so if there's a next +>> time. The solution seems worth leaving, though, in case anyone else in my +>> situation picks it up. --Paul |