php open_basedir bug

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Oct 1, 2009, at 16:44, Scott Haneda wrote:

> On Oct 1, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On Oct 1, 2009, at 16:09, Scott Haneda wrote:
>>
>>> Something not right with upgrade:
>>> $sudo port upgrade php5
>>>
>>> $sudo /opt/local/apache2/bin/apachectl graceful
>>> httpd: Syntax error on line 497 of /opt/local/apache2/conf/ 
>>> httpd.conf: Could not open configuration file /opt/local/apache2/ 
>>> conf/extras-conf/mod_php.conf: No such file or directory
>>>
>>
>> The config file moved from the directory "extras-conf" to the  
>> directory "extra".
>
> Intentionally? Accidentally? A bug?  What happened to the extras- 
> conf directory?  I know it used to be there as I ram my head into it  
> every time I tab complete in that area.
>
> So the new location for mod_php.conf is to be in "extra"?  Was there  
> anything in there before?

Apache used to distribute its extra conf files in a directory "extras- 
conf". To match this, php5 put its extra conf file there too. But a  
long time ago apache changed the name of that directory to "extra" and  
we never updated php5 to suit. Now I have. See #21217.

http://trac.macports.org/ticket/21217

See r58589 for the full list of changes in the 5.3.0_3 update.

http://trac.macports.org/changeset/58589


>>> $grep extras-conf /opt/local/apache2/conf/httpd.conf
>>> Include conf/extras-conf/mod_php.conf
>>>
>>> * Was my httpd.conf replaced in the upgrade?
>>> -rw-r--r--   1 root  admin  17239 Sep 30 15:09 httpd.conf
>>> -rw-r--r--   1 root  admin  16757 Sep 16 22:51 httpd.conf.bak
>>>
>>> The 16th is too old for that to be a .bk made today.  Actually,  
>>> httpd.conf is fine, I see some customizations I made in there.
>>>
>>> "extras-conf" is gone, which is where that mod_php.conf used to  
>>> live.
>>>
>>> It is now in:
>>> /opt/local/apache2/conf/extra
>>>
>>> [snip...]	
>>>
>>> -rw-r--r--  1 root  admin    398 Sep 18 17:40 httpd-vhosts.conf
>>> -rwxr-xr-x  2 root  admin    129 Oct  1 13:52 mod_php.conf
>>>
>>> Why is the +x bit set on it?
>>
>> It shouldn't cause any harm, but indeed is not intended. I'll look  
>> into it.
>
> What are correct permissions?

644 would be fine.

Looks like the portfile explicitly installs the file with 755  
permissions. I have no idea why. I'll change it to 644 with the next  
update.