Frontpage + Centos 4.2 64BIT

S

snaaps

Verified User
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
226
Location
Netherlands
We can not enable the frontpage extensions in da.
We use the 64Bit version of Centos 4.2.
whe have this problem on all the 64BIT servers.

If I try to enable the extenions we get the follow error:
Error setting up your web: sh: /usr/local/frontpage/version5.0/bin/owsadm.exe: No such file or directory

[root@ccc12 local]# locate owsadm.exe
No results!

[root@ccc12 local]# locate frontpage
/usr/local/directadmin/data/skins/default/user/frontpage.html
/usr/local/directadmin/data/skins/default/images/frontpage.gif
/usr/local/directadmin/data/skins/power_user/user/frontpage.html
/usr/local/directadmin/data/skins/enhanced/user/frontpage.html
/usr/local/directadmin/data/skins/enhanced/lang/en/user/frontpage.html
/usr/local/directadmin/customapache/mod_frontpage-1.6.1.tar.gz
/usr/local/directadmin/customapache/frontpage.patch
/usr/local/directadmin/customapache/apache_1.3.34/src/modules/extra/mod_frontpage.o
/usr/local/directadmin/customapache/apache_1.3.34/src/modules/extra/mod_frontpage.c
/usr/local/directadmin/customapache/apache_1.3.34/mod_frontpage.c
/usr/local/directadmin/customapache/mod_frontpage.c
/usr/local/directadmin/scripts/frontpage.sh

Try:
cd /usr/local/directadmin/customapache
./build frontpage_ext
this will creates the directory: /usr/local/frontpage/version5.0/bin/
includes the file: owsadm.exe

Well i try again to enable frontpage:
get now this error:
Error setting up your web: sh: /usr/local/frontpage/version5.0/bin/owsadm.exe: /lib/ld-linux.so.2: bad ELF interpreter: No such file or directory
 
Last edited:
Directadmin has changed the install page:
RedHat Enterprise / CentOS 3.x, 4.x (64-bit: 4.x only. BETA)

Thanks for the fact they added that it's only a BETA version c.q. not fully functional!

Okay, it's quiet clear that there is no support for the frontpage extensions on a 64-bit server/os.

One of the problems is the lib directory's.

There is no file like ld-linux.so.2 in the /lib directory.
Normaly on a 32 bit os this file links to /lib/ld-2.3.4.so

I found 2 files in the /lib64 directory:
ld-2.3.4.so and ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
This last file links to the first file.

Well, I created a link into the /lib directory:
ln -s /lib64/ld-2.3.4.so ./ld-linux.so.2

This didn't work, neighter the link:
ln -s /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 ./ld-linux.so.2 which also wouldn't work.

When we trying enable frontpage, we see this:
Error setting up your web: sh: /usr/local/frontpage/version5.0/bin/owsadm.exe: Accessing a corrupted shared library

It seems that frontpage does not support any 64-bit os.
When we have a look at the next page we see no 64-bit os:
http://www.rtr.com/fpsupport/fp2002sr1_download.htm
 
Seeing as the version being used in day is 2002, that does not surprise me.
 
DA uses the latest version of FrontPage Extensions.

No newer serverside FPX implentation was ever officially released.

FPX has been officially abandoned by Microsoft.

Jeff
 
Not quite: frontpage 2002 extensions will be officially discontinued (and no longer even available for download.....) from June 2006.

So you have months of use left in them then :)

See this EOL announcement

I would be happy for DA to discontinue FPX. I think most people use them solely for uploading files anyway, and you can do that in Frontpage (and other MS apps) without needing FPX anyway.
 
There's a lot more to FPX besides uploading changes; none of the FPX features are available if FPX isn't available.

Jeff
 
True, none of the FPX features will be available if FPX is not running.

However, my points are a) does anyone using FP use the extra features offered by FPX?

b) Once FPX itself stops being available, no-one will be able to use them anyway. I admit I havn't checked the licencing of FPX, but I really doubt its released under the GPL.

Once Microsoft stops using it themselves, all the front-end applications that support it will also stop using it. If its a nuisance to support, and it is going away anyway, I suggest DA gets rid of it sooner rather than later.
 
Hello,

I'll be the first to cheer when we drop it ;)
But.. we'd probably only be getting rid of it for those OS's that don't support it.. basically just hiding the interface in DA.
If some users are already acustomed to using it, we'd get a fair amount of hate mail if we drop with a DA release, when their extensions still work fine on their servers (older/current OS's). So, basically, as new OS's cannot support it at all, then we'll probably hide it in the interface.

John
 
John,

Gather ye rose-buds while ye may,
Old Time is still aflying,
And this same flower that smiles today,
Tomorrow will be dying.
- Robert Herrick

Where rosebuds refer to the code trees you'll need, and the flower is the site hosting the downloads.

:D

Jeff
 
Martynas,

I'm not sure what you mean. If you include mod_dav will frontpage work?

Jeff
 
Yes, we can say it's a replacement of mod_frontpage :) But it won't work with old versions of MS Frontpage (<2000). Which is better, mod_frontpage or mod_dav? Sure mod_dav, that's why I've included it in the new version of customapache.

Microsoft itself seems to be moving away from the FrontPage protocol and favoring the DAV protocol. In addition, FrontPage extensions for Unix are regarded as highly insecure because they require running certain parts with root user privileges. This means that if the Web server is compromised, the attacker automatically gains complete control over the machine. DAV enables you to take advantage of all the other Apache and HTTP protocol features, such as SSL, caching, authentication mechanisms, and so on.
Click to expand...

So, unless you need to support older clients that understand only the FrontPage protocol, using mod_dav is likely the better choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top