Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?

2016-10-22 Thread Andy Bradford
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

Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?

2016-10-22 Thread Andy Bradford
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

Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?

2016-10-22 Thread Richard Hipp
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

Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?

2016-10-22 Thread Andy Bradford
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

Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?

2016-10-21 Thread jungle Boogie
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?

2016-10-21 Thread Nathaniel Reindl
On Oct 21, 2016, at 18:55, K. Fossil user wrote: > 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

Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?

2016-10-21 Thread K. Fossil user
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

Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?

2016-10-21 Thread Nathaniel Reindl
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

[fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?

2016-10-21 Thread Steven Gawroriski
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