I'm struggling trying to get radiant-0.6.1 installed in a subdirectory. My current approach is to use an Apache proxy. I note there are threads starting: http://lists.radiantcms.org/pipermail/radiant/2006... http://lists.radiantcms.org/pipermail/radiant/2006... http://lists.radiantcms.org/pipermail/radiant/2006... which indicate some other ways this might be done. For the moment I'm trying the approach suggested in: http://lists.radiantcms.org/pipermail/radiant/2007... which is fairly clean --- but I've found doesn't quiet work when browsing to /admin. I start radiant via either mongrel or webrick, and have it listen on 127.0.0.1:3000. The problem is that when Apache forwards the request using proxypass, it includes the following in the HTML: ---------------------- HTTP_X_FORWARDED_HOST: foo HTTP_USER_AGENT: Wget/1.10.2 (Red Hat modified) SCRIPT_NAME: / SERVER_PROTOCOL: HTTP/1.1 HTTP_HOST: 127.0.0.1:3000 ---------------------- This triggers code in /radiant-0.6.1/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/cgi_process.rb to prefer the host named in HTTP_X_FORWARDED_HOST So if I go http://localhost/radiant/admin, I get a 302 redirect that reads: HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:13:11 GMT Server: Mongrel 1.0.1 Status: 302 Found Location: http://foo/admin/pages Where the new location has used HTTP_X_FORWARDED_HOST instead of HTTP_HOST. I can't quite figure out what the real problem is. o Is Apache wrong in including HTTP_X_FORWARDED_HOST ? I think that's pretty standard fare, and I can't see a reason for Apache not to include that. o Should radiant ignore HTTP_X_FORWARDED_HOST ? Given John Long's comment in http://lists.radiantcms.org/pipermail/radiant/2006... I suspect this might be the right course of action. o Is the code in action_controller/cgi_process.rb wrong in all cases? I'm wondering if using HTTP_X_FORWARDED_HOST can ever be the right course of action for CGI scripts?
on 2007-06-02 05:57