On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 12:58:29PM -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 12:34:54PM -0500, Cooper Jr., Franklin wrote: > > > 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
Any comments? > > > > >>>> -CONFIG_IFUPDOWN_UDHCPC_CMD_OPTIONS="-R -n" > > > > >>>> +CONFIG_IFUPDOWN_UDHCPC_CMD_OPTIONS="-R -b" > > > > >>> > > > > > 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 Franklin, please confirm we can proceed with this change - did you get a chance to test your scripts? -- Denys _______________________________________________ meta-arago mailing list [email protected] http://arago-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meta-arago
