Eric
Eric Spakman wrote:
Hello Erich, Andrea,
There are more important things to be done in the Bering branch, a lot of packages contain old versions of programs with known security flaws.
I know, I updated a few
The Bering-uClibc team did a lot of work to update and tweak almost every source and improve the internals of all the packages and the base system.
Note that with a newer kernel quiet a few (kernel related) Bering packages will get broken, like f.e. iptables, tc, ....
I had to update those too....
Also with adding a big glibc you will hit other problems like initrd space and system RAM (LEAF is enterily run in RAM) so a big flashdisk is not the only requirement.Agreed, I may be biased in that I hardly ever see a system with less than 64 Mb
And maybe not all the current Bering packages are compatible with a newer glibc without recompiling?
Absolutely, but using a current glibc might allow us
I personal don't see anything against uClibc, but probably I'm biased :-)You should be :-) . It is probably a probability issue (due to the increasing number of uClubc users) that I see more uClibc problems showing up on the list than the ones with glibc. This is the main reason for me to stay on the glibc base.
I personally like the buildtool environment, the only drawback for me is, that it appears to abandon the standard GNU config/installation procedures which requires a port of each and every package. I wonder if, for a glibc environment, we could use precompiled binaries from a current distro.
About webconf. Why not help Nathan to improve his webconf system?
In some aspect I did, I ported it to glibc :-).
Nathan did a great job to create an extendable framework for a webconfiguration system in line with the modular nature of LEAF packages. This means that you can extend webconf anyway you like. With the base webconf system you can edit the packages like with lrcfg but by using package specific "lwp" packages you can make a nice interface to a package configuration and still have the choice to do it the "old fashioned way" by using the CLI (lrcfg).
So the only thing webconf "lacks" now is some lwp packages to provide a "nice" interface to the lrp packages (there are already some created by Nathan)
You are right and Andrea already offered to do so.
For a few years I hear talking about a nice GUI or a new config system on this list, Nathan actually builded a nice extendible and advanced system which I believe can be better than f.e. m0n0wall and solves the "config issue". So why not put our effort in helping Nathan? What's wrong with his system?Nothing at all. It just takes as much time as any other Web based GUI (and the increasing number of incompatible browsers dos not help much). Not being fluent in haserls dialect makes this more difficult too. But these are excuses....
We'll see if I can muster the effort of writing a few .lwps
cheers
Erich
------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
