Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CGI differences in apache 2.0 and 2.2

2007-02-11 Thread Steve Pelikan
in order to execute it, it only proves that you are about to try (and probably fail, perhaps for one of the reasons I've mentioned). It may well be that the error you are geting is "command ls not found". On 11/02/07, *Steve Pelikan* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CGI differences in apache 2.0 and 2.2

2007-02-11 Thread Steve Pelikan
resolving commands. On 11/02/07, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: Steve Pelikan wrote: > We have several perl cgi scripts that run fine with apache 2.0 but fail > with 2.2. This is using 2.2 that is part of recent

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CGI differences in apache 2.0 and 2.2

2007-02-11 Thread Steve Pelikan
I'm suspect there are other restrictions if you do, maybe. On 10/02/07, *Steve Pelikan* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: We have several perl cgi scripts that run fine with apache 2.0 but fail with 2.2. This is using 2.2 that is part of recent Fed

[EMAIL PROTECTED] CGI differences in apache 2.0 and 2.2

2007-02-10 Thread Steve Pelikan
We have several perl cgi scripts that run fine with apache 2.0 but fail with 2.2. This is using 2.2 that is part of recent Fedora and 2.0.59 that I just built and installed on the same machine. The problem seems to be with system() calls in perl. system("ls"); returns an error with version 2.