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
