[libdb-develop] Installation: installer.cgi, not installer/index.cgi?

[Morbus I. <mo...@di...>]

How do people feel about /installer.cgi compared to installer/index.cgi?
A quick reading by one tester had him loading /index.cgi, due to the
similarities of the filename.

The prime reason for using installer/index.cgi was the ability to say
"now, delete the entire installer/ directory to prevent malicious users
from overwriting your database". But, it'd be just as easy for me to
say "delete the installer/ directory", and have the installer.cgi
fail if that directory doesn't exist.

Then, they'll be less confusion with /installer.cgi compared to
installer/index.cgi, both in the "what file do I set permissions on",
and "what file do I load in my browser".

Thoughts?

-- 
Morbus Iff ( shower your women, i'm coming )
Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779
Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/
icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus