The following reply was made to PR mod_rewrite/5733; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Ralf S. Engelschall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: mod_rewrite/5733: "On-the-fly Content-Regeneration" will not work
as described.
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:26:50 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>>Synopsis: "On-the-fly Content-Regeneration" will not work as described.
> [...]
> "RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-s
> RewriteCond ^page\.html$ page.cgi [T=application/x-httpd-cgi,L]"
>
> 1) The second RewriteCond should be a RewriteRule.
> 2) the -s and -f checks seem to just do a stat() on what they are given,
> anyway, so unless your documentroot is / then the file will never exist?
> 3) Under what conditions *would* this work? :)
>>How-To-Repeat:
> http://www.apache.org.uk/docs/misc/rewriteguide.html
>>Fix:
> Subst RewriteCond for RewriteRule in second line.
Done.
> Add note, or additional info into file-test section to clarify if they check
> URIs or files (this example implies URIs, the docs says 'file').
There is the following note:
| ATTENTION: Depending on your server-configuration it can be necessary to
| slightly change the examples for your situation, e.g. adding the [PT] flag
| when additionally using mod_alias and mod_userdir, etc. Or rewriting a
ruleset
| to fit in <tt>.htaccess</tt> context instead of per-server context. Always
try
| to understand what a particular ruleset really does before you use it. It
| avoid problems.
Here the ruleset was originally used in .htaccess context and there
is should work as written down (although I've not tried it since two
years).
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
