X-Git-Url: https://sipb.mit.edu/gitweb.cgi/ikiwiki.git/blobdiff_plain/78ab937dbf7d33b77076907539ed463ba4df1337..b5eb811faed5050ced2c6dcc5b52d60d3851d24b:/doc/bugs/CGI_problem_with_some_webservers.mdwn diff --git a/doc/bugs/CGI_problem_with_some_webservers.mdwn b/doc/bugs/CGI_problem_with_some_webservers.mdwn index 005e5ccce..e4b0fd448 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/CGI_problem_with_some_webservers.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/CGI_problem_with_some_webservers.mdwn @@ -68,9 +68,41 @@ Why do they appear two times with conflicting values in the very same hashes? Marking [[done]] since it's not really an ikiwiki bug. --[[Joey]] -I'm getting some odd behaviour with boa. When I edit a page and click "Save -Page", the URL I get taken to produces a 403 - Forbidden error until I reload -it. For example, it brings me back to page `http://localhost/~pdw/iki/?updated`, -I see a 403 error message, then I hit Ctrl-R, and then the page displays -correctly, with the same URL that gave an error a moment ago. This is with boa -0.94.14rc21-3 and Firefox 3.0.11 on Ubuntu 9.04. +---- + +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