[CentOS] Re: NameVirtualHost and CGI Problems

2008-10-10 Thread Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:01:24 +0930, admin wrote: >> Have you run several Virtual Hosts with the same IP address? > > Yes, I run multiple Virtual Hosts on my development server and they all > look like this: > > NameVirtualHost *:80 > > >DocumentRoot /var/www/html/site1 >ServerName site

Re: [CentOS] Re: NameVirtualHost and CGI Problems

2008-10-10 Thread admin
Have you run several Virtual Hosts with the same IP address? Yes, I run multiple Virtual Hosts on my development server and they all look like this: NameVirtualHost *:80 DocumentRoot /var/www/html/site1 ServerName site1.localhost other stuff DocumentRoot /var/www/html/site2

[CentOS] Re: NameVirtualHost and CGI Problems

2008-10-09 Thread Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:03:13 -0500, Michael Peterson wrote: >> Michael Peterson wrote on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:09:54 -0500: >> >>> You need to remove the :80 in the VirtualHost declarations that >>> contains Servername entries. >> >> No, that's perfectly ok and recommended. His problem was that he w

[CentOS] Re: NameVirtualHost and CGI Problems

2008-10-09 Thread Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:42:06 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote: [...] > > I still don't see the purpose of that virtual host. If it is for > "catching" IP only accesses there are several methods to do this. Look > for > "default virtualhost" in the apache documentation (and in the config > template comi

Re: [CentOS] Re: NameVirtualHost and CGI Problems

2008-10-09 Thread Michael Peterson
Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:43:24 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote: Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote on Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:28:39 + (UTC): In other words, ServerName alone fails to distinguish two named virtual hosts. Oh, it sure does. If it is present in both -

[CentOS] Re: NameVirtualHost and CGI Problems

2008-10-09 Thread Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:43:24 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote: > Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote on Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:28:39 + (UTC): > >> In other words, ServerName alone fails to distinguish two named virtual >> hosts. > > Oh, it sure does. If it is present in both - which it isn't in your > config.

[CentOS] Re: NameVirtualHost and CGI Problems

2008-10-09 Thread Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:31:19 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote: > what's the purpose of that whole confusing configuration? If you want to > use IP-based virtualhosts *any* of them needs a servername. And why do > you enclose the Location statement in a virtualhost? Why don't you > simply specify the real

[CentOS] Re: NameVirtualHost and CGI Problems

2008-10-09 Thread Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:07:08 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: [...] I have additional information that ServerName is not working. My system requires two virtual hosts with different values of ServerName. If they share an IP address, the system fails. But if each virtual host has a unique IP a

[CentOS] Re: NameVirtualHost and CGI Problems

2008-10-09 Thread Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:14:54 -0700, Jerry Franz wrote: [...] > What do you get in the error_log? I found the CGI problem (mia culpa), and the CGI is now working, but the NameVirtualHost still has a problem. NameVirtualHost 192.168.9.21:80 NameVirtualHost 127.0.0.1:80 ... Order allo

Re: [CentOS] Re: NameVirtualHost and CGI Problems

2008-10-09 Thread Jerry Franz
Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:51:54 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote: [...] [...] IOW: What did you try to do? What happened? What did you expect to happen? What does your config look like? Are there any errors in the log file? Ralph [...] Indeed. Here is a summary: [

[CentOS] Re: NameVirtualHost and CGI Problems

2008-10-09 Thread Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:51:54 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote: [...] > Don't we all like puzzles? All those hundreds of pieces which look > similar? Is that blue one there sky or is it the water? The green one > over there - is it a tree? Is it a part of that house which has been > painted green? > >