Re: Serious bug: fou4s v0.11.3 doesn't work on Suse < 9

/ 2004-04-16 15:18:00 +0200
\ Kai Schaetzl:
> Lars Ellenberg wrote on Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:10:55 +0200:
> 
> > So, the issue seem to be that leo (apache 2.0.49) does NOT include the
> >   <Accept-Ranges: bytes
> >   <Content-Length: 0
> >   <Content-Range: bytes */1716
> > information, which gwdg (apache 1.3.27) DOES provide.
> > Maybe someone familiar with apache vs. apache can give a hint whether
> > this is a apache config problem, a problem with the apache versions,
> > a problem with the leo reply being out of spec (non-rfc-conform[tm]) or
> > a problem with wget (mis)interpreting the server response.
> 
> Hm, I thought I'm familiar with Apache, but ...
> Unfortunately, I don't know of any Apache 2.0 servers around, so that one 
> could test against them. Anyone knows sites with 2.0?

You could just install apache and apache2 from your suse distro, and
check against localhost :)

> BTW: how did you get those logs? Is this a diff against output redirected 
> to a file?

tcpdump -s0 -w tmp.log port 80       *g*

> > also interesting that both apaches answer a HTTP/1.0 request with a
> > HTTP/1.1 reply, but this may be legal :)

> I think that's ok. I think I remember that 1.0 didn't include the 
> hostname, that was only added later as an unofficial extension and then 
> put into 1.1. Just a guess, may be wrong. One difference I noted is that 
> leo answers with a content-type of text/html to the wget request, but I 
> can't see a reason for that from the communciation. Did it send a verbose 
> error page?

maybe it tries to, in which case it would be the "verbose error
documents" (or what ever that is called) config option in apache.
dunno.
wget does a HEAD request first, when in -N -c mode, so the actual
content, if any, was never transfered.
I'll investigate further if I have the time again, but hey, you could do
so as well :)

	Lars Ellenberg
--