|
From: Lachlan A. <lh...@us...> - 2003-06-06 13:31:20
|
Greetings Jon, Thanks for your offer to advise us on how to simplify configuring=20 ht://Dig, and you are right that it doesn't belong in the bug report. =20 You can reply to me (lh...@us...) or to =20 htd...@li... Regarding the value of common_dir, thank you for contacting the=20 RedHat packagers. The point I was trying to make was not that the=20 RPM should have located old .conf files, but that when the packagers=20 compiled their package, they can set it to whatever they consider=20 fits best with the other packages for their distribution. (That is=20 why there are RedHat RPMs which are distinct from, say, Mandrake=20 RPMs.) The actual ht://Dig default configuration points common_dir =20 to /opt/www/share/htdig, so the decision to make it /usr/share/htdig=20 must have been made by the packagers. Cheers, Lachlan > Date: 2003-05-17 21:16 > Sender: jonbaron > Logged In: YES=20 > user_id=3D770474 >=20 > Concerning the second part of your question, what to do to make > construction of htdig.conf easier, I'd rather discuss that > by email. > It doesn't belong in this bug report. >=20 > ba...@ps... Date: 2003-05-17 21:13 Sender: jonbaron Logged In: YES=20 user_id=3D770474 It wouldn't be a problem with the RPM if htdig kept common_dir in=20 /usr/share/htdig. The fact that it changed is what caused the=20 problem, no? I guess it is too late now. I suppose it is my job to=20 alert RedHat to this problem. I will try to figure out how to do=20 that. Should an RPM be expected to find all the various htdig.conf=20 files and fix them? I don't think so. (I have several, with=20 different names.) Date: 2003-05-17 16:40 Sender: lha Logged In: YES=20 user_id=3D663373 Thanks for your feedback. Yes, it does sound like a bug in the RPM. The default value of common_dir is set at compile time, and it would be reasonable to expect the RPM maintainer to put the default header and footer files in the default common directory. Can you suggest what the ht://Dig team should do? Regarding the time taken to create your htdig.conf file, I realise that this is a problem. Can you suggest what would have speeded up the process? Thanks again, Lachlan --- Original Message --- I upgraded to RedHat Linux 9, which has htdig-3.2.0-16.20021103. I do=20 not know what version of htdig I had before, but I was using RH 7.3=20 (but I don't think the version I was using came with that). The header and footer of the search results did not display. I was=20 able to fix the problem by adding the line common_dir: /usr/share/htdig to /etc/htdig.conf (Don't ask how I arrived at this solution. I have=20 no idea.) This may be a problem with the RPM. But, on the other hand, it did a=20 reasonable thing, which was to leave my htdig.conf file alone (which=20 took me hours and hours to make). That file did not contain any=20 definition of common_dir.=20 |
|
From: Lachlan A. <lh...@us...> - 2003-06-06 13:46:46
|
Greetings again, Jon, I'm sorry, I misread your bug report. I take it that common_dir =20 *wasn't* /usr/share/htdig in the RedHat RPM, but that it should have=20 been. If the packagers configured it with --prefix=3D/usr (which the=20 package information says they did), then the default location for =20 common_dir would be /usr/share/htdig. If that isn't what it is,=20 they must also have overridden either --datadir=3D... or =20 --with-common-dir=3D... The point remains that the way the packagers choose to configure the=20 package is beyond our control. We just provide the flexibility for=20 them to put things wherever they want. Out of interest, do you know where they *did* point common_dir to? =20 I've tried to find out, haven't been able to :( Cheers, Lachlan On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 23:30, Lachlan Andrew wrote: > Regarding the value of common_dir,... > The actual ht://Dig default configuration points=20 > common_dir to /opt/www/share/htdig, so the decision to make it > /usr/share/htdig must have been made by the packagers. [deleted] > The header and footer of the search results did not display. I was > able to fix the problem by adding the line > common_dir: /usr/share/htdig > to /etc/htdig.conf (Don't ask how I arrived at this solution. I > have no idea.) |
|
From: Gilles D. <gr...@sc...> - 2003-06-12 20:29:38
|
According to Lachlan Andrew: > I'm sorry, I misread your bug report. I take it that common_dir > *wasn't* /usr/share/htdig in the RedHat RPM, but that it should have > been. If the packagers configured it with --prefix=/usr (which the > package information says they did), then the default location for > common_dir would be /usr/share/htdig. If that isn't what it is, > they must also have overridden either --datadir=... or > --with-common-dir=... > > The point remains that the way the packagers choose to configure the > package is beyond our control. We just provide the flexibility for > them to put things wherever they want. > > Out of interest, do you know where they *did* point common_dir to? > I've tried to find out, haven't been able to :( They point it to /var/www/html/htdig. Actually, they do lots of really dumb things in their RPM package. First of all they set common_dir and image_dir to the same thing, then they move /var/www/html/htdig to /usr/share/htdig. In previous RPMs, they then made a symlink from /var/www/html/htdig (in the htdig-web package) over to /usr/share/htdig, so that htsearch et al. only found the common files if you had installed both htdig and htdig-web packages, and htsearch's images would only load if you configure httpd to follow symlinks. Now, to resolve the latter problem, they use an Apache Alias instead of a symlink, so the images load, but nothing will find the common files unless you fix common_dir in your htdig.conf. Maybe in another year or two they'll finally get it right. I can send you their .spec file if you're interested. -- Gilles R. Detillieux E-mail: <gr...@sc...> Spinal Cord Research Centre WWW: http://www.scrc.umanitoba.ca/ Dept. Physiology, U. of Manitoba Winnipeg, MB R3E 3J7 (Canada) |
|
From: Jonathan B. <ba...@ps...> - 2003-06-06 18:46:49
|
>I'm sorry, I misread your bug report. I take it that common_dir >*wasn't* /usr/share/htdig in the RedHat RPM, but that it should have >been. If the packagers configured it with --prefix=/usr (which the >package information says they did), then the default location for >common_dir would be /usr/share/htdig. If that isn't what it is, >they must also have overridden either --datadir=... or >--with-common-dir=... > >The point remains that the way the packagers choose to configure the >package is beyond our control. We just provide the flexibility for >them to put things wherever they want. > >Out of interest, do you know where they *did* point common_dir to? >I've tried to find out, haven't been able to :( I am now totally baffled. I have spent too long looking at the source RPMs for the old version of htdig (which worked) and the new version (which was the one I was complaining about, specifically old: htdig-3.2.0-1.b4.0.71.i386.rpm htdig-web-3.2.0-1.b4.0.71.i386.rpm new: htdig-3.2.0-16.20021103.i386.rpm htdig-web-3.2.0-16.20021103.i386.rpm Eventually, I realized that most of what I needed was not in the source RPMs but just in these binary RPMs. If you say rpm -qpl [file.rpm] you get a complete list of all the files. They were essentially identical except for two irrelevant changes (one the position of htdig.conf, the other a specification of the /var/www/html/htdig directory in the new one). Importantly, both RPMs put the file footer.html (the source of my original problem) in /usr/share/htdig/ and that is the value of "common_dir". I did notice that, in the source RPM for the new one, but not the old one, there was a single file called htdig.conf, consisting of one line: Alias /htdig /usr/share/htdig But this should not affect anything, right? This file was just sitting there. It was not part of any directory, but it was in the root directory when you unpack the source RPM. I don't know enough about RPMs to say. The bug is that, in the old version, you do not need to specify the location of common_dir in htdig.conf, but, in the new version you do. YOU COULD FIX THE BUG by adding common_dir: /usr/share/htdig to the default htdig.conf. If this is where common_dir is supposed to be, then it would do no harm. It would be redundant. But this would make it work with the new RPM, which DOES NOT CHANGE the location of common_dir. The problem is that it does not recognize this location unless it is specified in htdig.conf. Jon |
|
From: J. op d. B. <ht...@op...> - 2003-06-17 19:18:38
|
Hi, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Baron" <ba...@ps...> To: "Lachlan Andrew" <lh...@us...> (deleted lot of text) > > I did notice that, in the source RPM for the new one, but not the > old one, there was a single file called htdig.conf, consisting of I think this is an Apache 2.0 plugin config file. Apache 2 can load files that end with .conf (and sitting is some predestined directory) together with the httpd.conf so it's not the htdig config file. > one line: Alias /htdig /usr/share/htdig > But this should not affect anything, right? This file was just > sitting there. It was not part of any directory, but it was in > the root directory when you unpack the source RPM. I don't know > enough about RPMs to say. (snipped text) > --Jesse |