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 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?

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 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?

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 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?

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
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 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
___
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 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, 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?

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 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