RE: [cgiwrap-users] real hosting and cgiwrap

[jeff b. <soi...@sg...>]

> > have you heard of the Apache Directive: RewriteRule?  try using
> that to hide
> > all the /cgiwrap/~user/ part:
> >
> > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/mod/mod_rewrite.html#RewriteRule
>
> If I have to use this, there is almost no difference to using suexec,
> because I have to do a virtualhost entry for each domain and define the
> rewrite rule for each of them.
>

Once you get a rewrite rule that works all you'd have to do is copy it to
each virtualhost and edit the username. That seems pretty simple to me.


> > have you heard of Piotr Klaban's php-cgiwrap patch? try using
> that to get
> > rid of having to put #!/path-to-php/ in your .php files.
> >
> > http://www.klaban.torun.pl/patches/cgiwrap/
>
> It's not, that I didn't find the appropriate patches. But please
> explain: Why has every new cgiwrap user to look for dozend of patches to
> get everything to work? We doesn't the maintainer of cgiwrap combine
> e.g. the php-patch, because in the end everyone needs it. Whats the
> virtue of prepending "#!/usr/bin/php" to each php-script and set it
> executable? That behavioir reminds me on qmail or djbdns: There is so
> much, that isn't perfect and there are so much really good patches. But
> every single new user has to start from beginning, because the author is
> not willing to include patches or improve his core-version. Is that your
> idea of open source?
>

I'm not sure why he hasn't included it.  But, here's a pretty good reason
why not.... If you write a script that requires that it be wrapped then
putting a flag in there of #!/path-to-php/ is a good way to do it.  That way
when someone else tries to use your script in a non-wrapped way they can be
flagged that "hey, this script needs to be wrapped and not run under the
apache user".  This way there is a visible difference between php files that
require wrapping and ones that do not.

Jeff