On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 12:34:54PM -0500, Cooper Jr., Franklin wrote: > > > >> Carlos, > > > >> Do we really need another web server? > > > >> We have lighttpd and thttpd already. Can either of those be reused > > > >> especially thttpd since it's already a light weight web server. > > > > > > > > I guess this question would need to be directed to LAVA guys. Not > > > > sure if their build includes any of those other http servers, hence > > > > they enabled the simplest one. > > > > > > > > We do indeed already have 2 http servers, and yes it would be nice > > > > to re-use one of them instead of enabling 3rd one. But the question > > > > is - who will validate and, if needed, update corresponding LAVA pieces > > > > to > > work with thttpd? > > > > > Let me check how we currently use thttpd. I wouldn't mind replacing it > > > with httpd if possible instead of adding a third web server. > > > > I don't believe we actively use thttpd any more. It was added way back to > > Classic Arago to support DVSDK and running cgi scripts as root: > > > > http://arago- > > project.org/git/?p=arago.git;a=commit;h=f8bf614c85f435f53a78a0151b239341 > > 643f6a13 > > > > I'd vote to kill it.
> [Franklin] I've wanted to kill it for a while but I was told that customers > frequently asked for a very lightweight web server so we kept it there to > show it off. Other than documentation I don't think we refer to thttpd in > our sdk. So, to summarize - we'll kill separate thttpd and enable httpd in busybox. Also, lighthttpd will stay, as it's used by matrix and is more feature-full > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Carlos Hernandez <[email protected]> > > > >>>> --- > > > >>>> meta-arago-distro/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/defconfig | 12 > > > >>>> ++++++------ > > > >>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -# CONFIG_HTTPD is not set > > > >>>> +CONFIG_HTTPD=y > > > >>>> # CONFIG_FEATURE_HTTPD_RANGES is not set # > > > >>>> CONFIG_FEATURE_HTTPD_USE_SENDFILE is not set # > > > >>>> CONFIG_FEATURE_HTTPD_SETUID is not set @@ -845,7 +845,7 @@ > > > >>>> CONFIG_UDHCP_DEBUG=0 # CONFIG_FEATURE_UDHCP_8021Q is not > > set > > > >>>> CONFIG_UDHCPC_DEFAULT_SCRIPT="/usr/share/udhcpc/default.script" > > > >>>> CONFIG_UDHCPC_SLACK_FOR_BUGGY_SERVERS=80 > > > >>>> -CONFIG_IFUPDOWN_UDHCPC_CMD_OPTIONS="-R -n" > > > >>>> +CONFIG_IFUPDOWN_UDHCPC_CMD_OPTIONS="-R -b" > > > >>> > > > >>> This supposedly changes udhcp behavior to go into background when > > > >>> waiting for an IP address, if not received right away, instead of > > > >>> exiting > > with an error. > > > >>> I personally don't have an issue with this, but will it affect SDK > > > >>> OOB experience in any way? Guys? > > > > > > > >> I'll double check but why instead of changing the default behavior > > > >> simply add &? I'm assuming you will get the same result but won't > > > >> have to worry about breaking anything. > > > > > > > > That's still not the same - with -n flag udhcp will time out soon if > > > > not received IP address, while with -b it will go into background > > > > and will wait for IP address there. So, if you add & at the end of > > > > command with -n it will go into background, but exit soon after, which > > > > is not > > the same. > > > > > > > So it sits indefinitely and assigns ip's whenever it can? If so I > > > would actual prefer that. I still need to check. > > > > Yes, it is my understanding that it will keep on pinging the server with > > request- > > IP periodically in the background, until it gets one. > > > > The current behaviour is it tries 3 times and if it can't get an IP, it > > exits with > > error. > > > > In both cases, once the IP is acquired, the client has to stay in the > > background > > for renewing the lease. The difference is the initial acquision. > [Franklin] This change will cause problems for one of our scripts. Since we > are extremely close to our release I would prefer if we hold off on making > this change. Wed of next week would be prefect if yall don't mind waiting. > I'll update the scripts at that point to reflect this change. > > I don't see a command to manually change this behavior to mimic how it > currently works once this change is made. So if such a command/option does > exist then I probably can fix the scripts real quick to make that change. udhcpc should take those flags on the command line as well: http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/networking/udhcp/dhcpc.c#n1147 -- Denys _______________________________________________ meta-arago mailing list [email protected] http://arago-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meta-arago
