From owner-freebsd-ports  Mon Sep 15 09:11:17 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA06446
          for ports-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scanner.worldgate.com (scanner.worldgate.com [198.161.84.3])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA06433
          for <ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from znep.com (uucp@localhost)
	by scanner.worldgate.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with UUCP id KAA23331;
	Mon, 15 Sep 1997 10:10:25 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from localhost (marcs@localhost) by alive.znep.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA26286; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 10:12:20 -0600 (MDT)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 10:12:20 -0600 (MDT)
From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com>
To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@interface-business.de>
cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Apache question
In-Reply-To: <19970915175001.EV22315@ida.interface-business.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970915100913.25897D-100000@alive.znep.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, J Wunsch wrote:

> As Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> > You are trying to access a directory without a trailing '/'.  Because the
> > object you request doesn't exist, Apache can't send it to you.  It can,
> > however, be nice and tell you what you are really looking for.  To do that
> > it has to send a redirect.
> 
> Ah -- now that makes sense.  Thanks!  (So i know that, besides of
> adding virtual servers, it's sufficient to edit the links that point
> to these directories so to include "dirname/index.html".)

Or just "dirname/" instead of "dirname".

This works as long as you don't have pesky things like users who type in
URLs for directories. 

> 
> > Oh, and I should add my standard don't use 1.2b6 use 1.2.4.
> 
> :-)
> 
> This is a totally unimportant server running on my machine at home.
> Its HTTP request hit rate is probably around 5 per day. ;-)

The problem is that Apache virtual hosts suck; 1.1 virtual hosts are
broken, but differently than 1.2 and still differently than 1.3.  1.2b6
virtual hosts are broken differently than 1.2.4 virtualhosts.  We pretend
to support how 1.2.4 virtualhosts are broken.  So if you do try anything
with virtualhosts and have trouble, try 1.2.4.  

This isn't intended to imply that virtual hosts don't work right, or they
change every release; for 99% of people, they never see the problems.  The
other 1%, however... get quite interesting behavior.  Technically correct,
but still odd.