Received: (qmail 10852 invoked by uid 2012); 19 May 1998 06:33:10 -0000 Message-Id: <19980519063310.10851.qmail@hyperreal.org> Date: 19 May 1998 06:33:10 -0000 From: Peter Laurie Reply-To: peter@abbotsbury.co.uk To: apbugs@hyperreal.org Subject: suEXEC gets too few arguments X-Send-Pr-Version: 3.2 >Number: 2250 >Category: suexec >Synopsis: suEXEC gets too few arguments >Confidential: no >Severity: critical >Priority: medium >Responsible: apache >State: closed >Class: sw-bug >Submitter-Id: apache >Arrival-Date: Mon May 18 23:40:01 PDT 1998 >Last-Modified: Sat Jun 27 00:07:39 PDT 1998 >Originator: peter@abbotsbury.co.uk >Organization: >Release: 1.3b6 >Environment: FreeBSD 2.1.0- RELEASE #0 >Description: When suEXEC is compiled as described in http://www2.idiscover.co.uk/apache/docs/suexec.html it writes the following in its log file: '[date/time]: too few arguments' >How-To-Repeat: >Fix: >Audit-Trail: State-Changed-From-To: open-feedback State-Changed-By: coar State-Changed-When: Thu Jun 18 11:46:41 PDT 1998 State-Changed-Why: I have no reason to think it will make any difference, but could you try with the recently released 1.3.0 version? In the meantime I'm looking into this. From: "peter laurie" To: Cc: Subject: Re: suexec/2250: suEXEC gets too few arguments Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:25:14 +0100 I've got 1.3b7 suexec.c asks for 'conf.h' (1.3b6 didn't), and it doesn't seem to be around, so I can't compile it to do what you ask Any suggestions? ---------- > From: coar@apache.org > To: apache-bugdb@apache.org; coar@apache.org; peter@abbotsbury.co.uk > Subject: Re: suexec/2250: suEXEC gets too few arguments > Date: 18 June 1998 19:46 > > [In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] > [you need to include in the Cc line ] > [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] > [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] > > > Synopsis: suEXEC gets too few arguments > > State-Changed-From-To: open-feedback > State-Changed-By: coar > State-Changed-When: Thu Jun 18 11:46:41 PDT 1998 > State-Changed-Why: > I have no reason to think it will make any difference, but > could you try with the recently released 1.3.0 version? In > the meantime I'm looking into this. Comment-Added-By: coar Comment-Added-When: Thu Jun 25 03:06:14 PDT 1998 Comment-Added: How are you compiling suexec? You should be doing cd src/support make suexec conf.h is in src/include/conf.h. You should be seeing a compilation line similar to this: cc -c -I../os/unix -I../include -O2 suexec.c with possibly a few other options. If you're not, then something's not right. Are you using the FreeBSD port of Apache, or did you download the tarball directly from the Apache site? I recommend strongly that you do the latter and pick up 1.3.0; there is at least one known problem with the FreeBSD port.. From: "peter laurie" To: "Ben Laurie" , Cc: Subject: Re: suexec/2250: suEXEC gets too few arguments Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 08:42:38 +0100 Started all over with Apache_1.3.0: suexec problem: 'too few arguments' seems to have gone away ---------- > From: coar@apache.org > To: apache-bugdb@apache.org; coar@apache.org; peter@abbotsbury.co.uk > Subject: Re: suexec/2250: suEXEC gets too few arguments > Date: 25 June 1998 11:06 > > [In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] > [you need to include in the Cc line ] > [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] > [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] > > > Synopsis: suEXEC gets too few arguments > > Comment-Added-By: coar > Comment-Added-When: Thu Jun 25 03:06:14 PDT 1998 > Comment-Added: > How are you compiling suexec? You should be doing > > cd src/support > make suexec > > conf.h is in src/include/conf.h. You should be seeing a > compilation line similar to this: > > cc -c -I../os/unix -I../include -O2 suexec.c > > with possibly a few other options. If you're not, then > something's not right. > > Are you using the FreeBSD port of Apache, or did you > download the tarball directly from the Apache site? > I recommend strongly that you do the latter and pick > up 1.3.0; there is at least one known problem with the > FreeBSD port.. State-Changed-From-To: feedback-closed State-Changed-By: marc State-Changed-When: Sat Jun 27 00:07:39 PDT 1998 State-Changed-Why: User reports problem solved. >Unformatted: [In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] [you need to include in the Cc line ] [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ]