A while back I mentioned some intermittant problems with pcgi under irix, and someone else mentioned the same sort of thing. (the error is 'pcgi-wrapper: Error 0 (116) unable to connect, fd=3') I was wondering if the DC guys knew about this, or were interested in it, or have verified its existence or cause? On the subject of pcgi, the pcgi-wrapper syntax seems rather clunky (written, no doubt, with a single zope process, rather than a bunch of 'normal' cgi processes, in mind). It requires absolute paths for everything, and whenever you move one or create a new one it's sort of a pain. Suppose I have: #!/usr/local/apache/published/pcgi-wrapper PCGI_NAME=spam PCGI_MODULE_PATH=/usr/local/apache/published/spam.py PCGI_PID_FILE=/usr/local/apache/pcgi-data/spam.pid PCGI_ERROR_LOG=/usr/local/apache/pcgi-data/spam.log PCGI_SOCKET_FILE=/usr/local/apache/pcgi-data/spam.socket PCGI_DISPLAY_ERRORS=y PCGI_PUBLISHER=/usr/local/apache/published/pcgi_publisher.py PCGI_EXE=/usr/local/bin/python It would be nice to be able to shorten this to: #!/usr/local/apache/published/pcgi-wrapper PCGI_MODULE_PATH=../published/spam.py PCGI_DATA_DIR=../published/pcgi-data and have pcgi-wrapper intuit the rest of the values for me (provided that I stick pcgi_publisher.py in pcgi-data). What are the problems with this scheme? The second problem is the pcgi-data directory. Since pcgi processes are run as the httpd user (or none or whataver), that user needs write access to pcgi-data. The only solutions I see are either to make pcgi-data 775 and put it in the httpd group, or make it 777, which is the only option for normal users. I'm not too keen on the idea of 777 directories, but I don't see any way around it besides apache's suEXEC (which is plastered with Big Fat Warnings). Anyone else thought about this problem? One good solution I can think of is mod_pcgi. Is someone actually working on that (or planning on working on that), or are people just assuming surely someone will write it eventually? thanks!