The "ikwiki.cgi?page=index&do=edit" function has a problem when running with [[!debpkg thttpd]] or [[!debpkg mini-httpd]]: for some reason the headers ikiwiki outputs are transmitted as the page content. Surprisingly, the "do=prefs" function works as expected. Here is what it looks like in iceweasel: Set-Cookie: ikiwiki_session_apnkit=99dad8d796bc6c819523649ef25ea447; path=/ Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:16:32 GMT Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html> (...) Ikiwiki runs fine with [[!debpkg boa]]. --[[JeremieKoenig]] It doesn't work for signin either. What is the reason for these "header => 1" in FormBuilder initialisations? Why do they appear two times with conflicting values in the very same hashes? --[[JeremieKoenig]] > Clearly those duplicate header settings are a mistake. But in all cases, the > `header => 0` came second, so it _should_ override the other value and > can't be causing this problem. (cgi_signin only sets it to 0, too). > > What version of formbuilder are you using? If you run ikiwiki.cgi at the > command line, do you actually see duplicate headers? I don't: joey@kodama:~/html>REQUEST_METHOD=GET QUERY_STRING="page=index&do=edit" ./ikiwiki.cgi Set-Cookie: ikiwiki_session_joey=41a847ac9c31574c1e8f5c6081c74d12; path=/ Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:04:06 GMT Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" > Do thttpd and mini-httpd perhaps not realize that Set-Cookis is the start of > the headers? --[[Joey]] >> Thanks for your help: I think I found the problem! >> Ikiwiki outputs (in my case) the following >> error message on stderr, followed by an empty line: /srv/ikiwiki/wc/index.mdwn: (Not a versioned resource) >> Probably thttpd and mini-httpd read stderr as well as stdout, while apache >> and boa don't. When using a shell-script wrapper as the CGI, >> which redirects ikiwiki's error output to /dev/null, it works better. >> The edit still fails to commit, because in my wiki, index.mdwn is >> pulled from the base wiki and somehow ikiwiki wants to change it >> rather that create it. >> --[[JeremieKoenig]] >>> If thttpd and mini-httpd interpret CGI's stderr as stdout, then >>> they're not properly following the CGI spec, and will break with tons >>> of cgi scripts besides ikiwiki. And of course there are many many cases >>> where ikiwiki might output to stderr, and that's the right thing to do. >>> So I don't see any way to address this in ikiwiki. --[[Joey]] >>>> (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