Hi,

It was addressing some potential security problems: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-users/2009-March/060600.html

Christy

Guillaume Sueur wrote:
Hi,

I think what David meant was about getting an error when SYMBOLSET is
not declared in the symbol file since 5.4.

I ran into the same problem, and had to add SYMBOLSET ... END to my
symbol files to have them running fine with MapServer 5.4.

Is it something newly added, or just a long lasting requisite become
mandatory ?

Regards,

Guillaume

Daniel Morissette a écrit :
Are you sure that the file you are editing is really the one used by
your mapfile? That's a common mistake... to verify that, try inserting
an invalid keyword in place of the SYMBOLSET keyword in your file and
verify that MapServer produces a parser error about it. If it doesn't
then it's probably not using the file you think it is.

Daniel


David Nugent wrote:
It starts (and ends) like this:

SYMBOLSET

  SYMBOL
        NAME    "point"
        TYPE    ELLIPSE
        POINTS
                1 1
        END
        FILLED  TRUE
  END

  SYMBOL
        NAME    "dashed"
        TYPE    ELLIPSE
        POINTS
                1 1
        END
        FILLED  TRUE
        STYLE
                8 6 8 6
        END
  END

...

END


Regards,
David


On 30/04/2009, at 1:13 PM, Steve Lime wrote:

Can you share your symbolset file? I've not had an issue with that
change.

Steve

David Nugent <[email protected]> 04/29/09 9:54 PM >>>
Hello all,

I've recently upgraded to mapserver 5.4 and hit a problem with
SYMBOLSET.

It seems that a file containing symbols referenced from the .map file
must now contain a SYMBOLSET keyword at the start (and presumably end
with END?). I made this change, but the parser still complains with
the message "First token must be SYMBOLSET".

Not really wanting to waste time on debugging the lex code, I simply
removed the check that emits this error from mapsymbol.c and all works
as expected. Obviously there is a deeper problem, whether it be the
logic in that statement (which appears to be correct as far as I can
tell) or the lex parser itself.

I'm just wondering if anyone else had hit the same problem.
_______________________________________________
mapserver-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
_______________________________________________
mapserver-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
_______________________________________________
mapserver-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users

Reply via email to