Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
This project is now read‑only. Starting Monday, February 2, please use https://ibm-ceph.atlassian.net/ for all bug tracking management.

Bug 1212163

Summary: rgw: don't create s3gw.fcgi
Product: [Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Ceph Storage Reporter: Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda>
Component: RGWAssignee: ceph-eng-bugs <ceph-eng-bugs>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: ceph-qe-bugs <ceph-qe-bugs>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 1.3.0CC: bhubbard, cbodley, ceph-eng-bugs, kbader, kdreyer, mbenjamin, owasserm, sweil
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: Documentation
Target Release: 1.3.1   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-07-01 17:49:12 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1212165    

Description Yehuda Sadeh 2015-04-15 17:08:37 UTC
The s3gw.fcgi is not needed, don't create one when installing rgw.

Comment 1 Brad Hubbard 2015-04-16 01:22:42 UTC
Does this require a separate documentation bug?

Comment 2 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2015-04-16 14:14:00 UTC
(In reply to Brad Hubbard from comment #1)
> Does this require a separate documentation bug?

Hi Brad, the docs change is tracked as bug 1212165

Comment 4 Yehuda Sadeh 2015-06-30 17:37:08 UTC
Who should this be assigned to? This looks like a documentation issue.

Comment 5 Brad Hubbard 2015-06-30 22:41:45 UTC
Yehuda,

I'd say once bz1212165 closes we can close this too?

Comment 6 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2015-06-30 22:54:29 UTC
Looking at the files list of the ceph binary RPMs, we don't actually ship s3gw.cgi, or even any documentation file that refers to it. So I think we can go ahead and close this. Brad, do you agree?

Comment 7 Brad Hubbard 2015-06-30 23:02:04 UTC
Hmmm... sure.

I'm wondering why these bugs weren't closed when the changes were made?

Comment 8 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2015-07-01 17:47:11 UTC
I guess this one wasn't closed because it turned out that there are no "code" changes to be made for this.

The docs team will have to comment on why bz1212165 wasn't closed :)