Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?
Thus said "Andy Bradford" on 22 Oct 2016 13:34:42 -0600: > Do we want to address the bugs that Venkat Iyer recently reported with > the ticket command before or after 1.36? I believe at least the transaction bug is addressed by: http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/1b6635a47fd8a1ad Now that we don't break the database, can we defer the other issue after 1.36? Thanks, Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000580bc466 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?
Thus said Richard Hipp on Sat, 22 Oct 2016 13:04:52 -0400: > I think it is reasonable to request a new option to 'fossil server" to > bind to a single address (other than loopback). Definitely, given that ``fossil server'' exists, one shouldn't have to rely on tcpserver or any other inetd-like setup to bind to a different address. > So are there any objections now to taking trunk as the 1.36 release so > that we can move forward on these kinds of things? Do we want to address the bugs that Venkat Iyer recently reported with the ticket command before or after 1.36? If after, then I think we're ready to go with 1.36. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000580bbf76 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?
I think it is reasonable to request a new option to 'fossil server" to bind to a single address (other than loopback). But I'm unwilling to make that change until the next release cycle. So are there any objections now to taking trunk as the 1.36 release so that we can move forward on these kinds of things? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?
Thus said "K. Fossil user" on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 22:55:56 -: > However, xinetd or inetd are not recommended... I usually recommend tcpserver. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000580b97d7 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?
Wait, what's wrong with inetd? ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?
On Oct 21, 2016, at 18:55, K. Fossil userwrote: > However, xinetd or inetd are not recommended... That ellipsis really should be filled in with more details. Would you perhaps be willing to elaborate a bit on what you mean? —n ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?
Hi, However, xinetd or inetd are not recommended... Best Regards K. De : Nathaniel Reindl <n...@corvidae.org> À : fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org Envoyé le : Vendredi 21 octobre 2016 21h48 Objet : Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address? On Fri, Oct 21, 2016, at 05:28 PM, Steven Gawroriski wrote: > Is Fossil able to bind to a single IP address? There is `--localhost` It doesn't seem that way, no. I've personally worked around it by employing tcpsvd from Gerrit Pape's excellent ipsvd package. The inetd super server (and its descendants) provide similar functionality. In my runit run script, modulo tcpsvd-specific details not relevant here, I have `exec tcpsvd 127.0.1.6 3000 fossil http /data/fossil/root --https`, and that seems to work well when using a reverse proxy to send traffic to it via something like Apache, HAProxy, or an Amazon ELB. —n ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016, at 05:28 PM, Steven Gawroriski wrote: > Is Fossil able to bind to a single IP address? There is `--localhost` It doesn't seem that way, no. I've personally worked around it by employing tcpsvd from Gerrit Pape's excellent ipsvd package. The inetd super server (and its descendants) provide similar functionality. In my runit run script, modulo tcpsvd-specific details not relevant here, I have `exec tcpsvd 127.0.1.6 3000 fossil http /data/fossil/root --https`, and that seems to work well when using a reverse proxy to send traffic to it via something like Apache, HAProxy, or an Amazon ELB. —n ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?
Hello, Is Fossil able to bind to a single IP address? There is `--localhost` but that binds to 127.0.0.1 and `--port` for the port. However I would like to listen on specific addresses, such as say 127.0.4.2 or a specific public address. Right now to do this I have to host a server with `--localhost` and have another web server act as a proxy to the Fossil server (it just forwards requests to the local server). I would rather have a setup where Fossil can listen on a specific address directly. Supporting this would mean that I would only need the Fossil binary. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users