Hi Erich; Am Montag, 25. Juli 2011, 16:13:08 schrieb Erich Titl: > KP > > at 25.07.2011 10:12, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: > > Hi Erich; > > > > Am Sonntag, 24. Juli 2011, 23:03:23 schrieb Erich Titl: > >> HI KP > >> > >> on 24.07.2011 01:39, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: > >>> Hi all; > >>> > >>> I think we've made enough steps forward to 4.1 to build a first beta, > >>> but I'm not shure if we do have showstoppers, which can be solved or > >>> has to be moved to a later version.
> >>> Erich, webconf and haserl in its current state is broken. Do you intend > >>> to work on these issues soon, or shall we move the update of haserl and > >>> webconf to a later release? > >> > >> Could you be more specific please? I guess the current version is in > >> master, but as this changes on a whim and gives me grief I kept all my > >> work on my local experimental branch. > > > > Updated webconf.lrp and get an error > > > > haserl CGI Error > > Unknown operation near line 85 of lrcfg.cgi > > > > > > > > at a lot of places (e.g. every time I call a config file in "expert > > mode"). The same with "Backup Settings", "DSL Settings" and > > "Dropbear.ssh". > > Sounds like there is old syntax in the .cgi files. This does not happen > at my site. The reason being that I am using haserl 0.9 for quite some > years now. > > >> My experimental branch will not be compatible with the version you'd > >> like to see for Bering, as I followed up on my ideas of package contents > >> to see if they are practical. There I will also introduce pwcrypt into > >> the webconf package as it does not make sense to leave it in its own. It > >> gets distributed with webconf anyway. All these changes of course affect > >> the entire development tree, as they are reflected in source.conf. > >> > >> Again, something has changed in the repository and I have no clue how to > >> handle it. I don't want to spend all my time to limp behind a changing > >> repository. Could you people please be so kind and warn others about > >> the effects your modifications may have on the repository? > > > > There has been no other changes for a month than new packages and package > > updates/fixes - but none on the repository or any other part of the > > infrastructure. > > > >> To port my modifications to the master branch requires me to redo all > >> the small changes. I would if *@#!ยง GIT would not get in my way all the > >> time. > >> > >> mega@luna:~/leaf/devel/leaf> git branch > >> * experimental > >> > >> master > >> > >> mega@luna:~/leaf/devel/leaf> git checkout master > >> error: You have local changes to 'repo/webconf/buildtool.cfg'; cannot > >> switch branches. > > > > Maybe you have not committed the changes to your local branch? In that > > case after switching to master, all your changes would have been lost. > > In the end I did, something I did not want to do, because it disables me > to inspect my changes easily. > > Having the .cgi files in a tarball (as in webconf and lwp) makes it > difficult to find out the differences, also possible enhancements which > partially are commented poorly. > > To make it easier for future enhancement I will explode the webconf > tarball in my local experimental branch and introduce single files. You're right and I did the same for lwp package; fixed also config.cgi, pppoe.cgi and dropbear.cgi. > This > will not enhance the capability to compare files between the branches > though. We need to find a solution for this in the long run. There should be one, it's not on unusual task IMHO. > I can also look at the current lwp files, they should be pretty easy to > fix, just tedious to find the problems without being able to compare. > > The easiest way to get quick results is to report single findings here. > I have not been able to find a ticket for it. See tickets #58 and #60. You asked for it :) kp ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Magic Quadrant for Content-Aware Data Loss Prevention Research study explores the data loss prevention market. Includes in-depth analysis on the changes within the DLP market, and the criteria used to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these DLP solutions. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51385063/ _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
