RE: [Leaf-devel] weblet & the like
Charles Steinkuehler wrote: >No...that's exactly what I'm thinking. There should be a consistent way to >configure/manage a package, so multiple front-ends can be driven w/o >requiring changes to the basic package. Maybe even a set of low-level tools >to deal with modifying configuration files, allowing an API level interface >to configuration front-ends... Charles, your comments reminded me of cfengine. (http://www.iu.hio.no/cfengine, or [my closer mirror] http://sunsite.utk.edu/cfengine) Its too huge for a LEAF box, but is it the right idea? Does anyone have any experience with it? Does anyone else know of something like cfengine, but smaller? ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] weblet & the like
On Tuesday 05 February 2002 14:52, Charles Steinkuehler wrote: > sh-httpd could be modified to include POST, but it might be better to > use something like mini-httpd, or perhaps a web-server written in an > scripting alternate language (if we include something like java, > ruby, &c). If we stick with sh-httpd, it should be cleaned up a bit, > given a serious security review, and also really needs support for > connection-keep-alive... Well, from my digging the last couple of days, the best web-server option I've seen has been thttpd that supports POST natively. It appears to be secure and supports SSL and we already have a package (whether a re-compile is needed for this is another story. I dug through Mosquito last night for a bit. They use _no_ text editor and _all_ configuration must be done via the web-cgi applet. They are using thttpd w/"uncgi" which seems a great system other than Uncgi is copywritten "freeware", which could cause us GPL problems if packaged in a release. Uncgi supports most scripting languages, Mosquito used shell and Jscript for theirs. I know this is a different direction than where we are looking, but thttpd and a generic GPL'ed script interpreter would work ideally. > I'd especially like to see a clean, extensible, understandable method > for setting up complex networking configurations & static routes, > since we're supposed to be targeting networking based > applications...I have yet to see a method of configuring networking > on a linux disto that I would consider "intuitively obvious", but > I've mainly worked with RH and Caldera. Anyone know if some other > disto has already solved this cleanly? Not in an advanced server/routing setting. I could come up with a menu system similar to the kernel "menuconfg/xconfig" that I think could be a lot clearer considering simple/advanced options. I've tested darn everything but Caldera and Gentoo looking for something similar. I was also working on a similar-type project, before starting LEAF, for a Server-Linux upstart creating a similar menu-system for configuration of Apache, ProFTP, Samba, etc Unfortunately, my hard-drive died the week I was going to upload it and I never bothered to cvs or back it up :( . A good lesson was learned that day. -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] weblet & the like
> >Nothing nailed down so-far...the "whole enchalida" is up for grabs! I'd > >especially like to see a clean, extensible, understandable method for > >setting up complex networking configurations & static routes, since we're > > Something like a meta-defninition that goes in the package (currently > /var/lib/lrp/.*) that defines what & how to configure the > package? > > That way someone could write a screen-based configuration manager (like > Oxygen's acfg), or the web-gui, or a microwindows/nano-x configuration > manager, or whatever, and they all talk to the common backend definition? > > Or am I going too far? No...that's exactly what I'm thinking. There should be a consistent way to configure/manage a package, so multiple front-ends can be driven w/o requiring changes to the basic package. Maybe even a set of low-level tools to deal with modifying configuration files, allowing an API level interface to configuration front-ends... Charles Steinkuehler http://lrp.steinkuehler.net http://c0wz.steinkuehler.net (lrp.c0wz.com mirror) ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: [Leaf-devel] weblet & the like
>Nothing nailed down so-far...the "whole enchalida" is up for grabs! I'd >especially like to see a clean, extensible, understandable method for >setting up complex networking configurations & static routes, since we're Something like a meta-defninition that goes in the package (currently /var/lib/lrp/.*) that defines what & how to configure the package? That way someone could write a screen-based configuration manager (like Oxygen's acfg), or the web-gui, or a microwindows/nano-x configuration manager, or whatever, and they all talk to the common backend definition? Or am I going too far? ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] weblet & the like
> hehe, Linuxconf more like Webmin :) > > OK, that pretty much eliminates any CGI except shell then. It's likely > the best option, being the perl is not possible on a floppy. I imagine > licensing would be a issue with vitually any other scripting language > anyway. Not necessarily, although shell-scripts would probably be capable of doing the work, possibly with a few small, custom apps to do the "heavy lifting". > > The ease of use this provides would help widen the user base, and I > > think the discipline of maintaining a consistent configuration scheme > > will add to both understandability and ease of administration. As > > long as the power to manually edit the config-files directly is still > > available (w/o completely confusing the GUI tools), I don't see where > > this has any big negatives (other than the obvious time/effort > > involved in building the configuration framework in the first place). > > In other words, it will require using "sh", sourcing file(s), mandatory > function style, dire commenting, and a good working knowledge of > "sed" (that I'll likely become _much_ more familiar with). > > Can you use "POST" in sh-httpd or is this going to have to move to > thttpd? sh-httpd could be modified to include POST, but it might be better to use something like mini-httpd, or perhaps a web-server written in an scripting alternate language (if we include something like java, ruby, &c). If we stick with sh-httpd, it should be cleaned up a bit, given a serious security review, and also really needs support for connection-keep-alive... > Do you have an existing release config file form you would like > to base off of, or do we do one from scatch? Nothing nailed down so-far...the "whole enchalida" is up for grabs! I'd especially like to see a clean, extensible, understandable method for setting up complex networking configurations & static routes, since we're supposed to be targeting networking based applications...I have yet to see a method of configuring networking on a linux disto that I would consider "intuitively obvious", but I've mainly worked with RH and Caldera. Anyone know if some other disto has already solved this cleanly? > Every character in the > McDonald's theme has a menu item associated with it except Ronald, > what exactly does Ronald represent? hehe You've got me there... Charles Steinkuehler http://lrp.steinkuehler.net http://c0wz.steinkuehler.net (lrp.c0wz.com mirror) ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] weblet & the like
On Tuesday 05 February 2002 08:16, Charles Steinkuehler wrote: > IMHO, there's nothing inherently wrong with GUI config tools > (properly secured). I would like to see a consistent configuration > system for the next generation LEAF that allows text-based menu > configiguration via scripts on the default system, with the option of > adding a web GUI if desired (sort of a light-weight linuxconf that > actually works). It should also be possible to edit config files by > hand without confusing the config menu front-end. hehe, Linuxconf more like Webmin :) OK, that pretty much eliminates any CGI except shell then. It's likely the best option, being the perl is not possible on a floppy. I imagine licensing would be a issue with vitually any other scripting language anyway. > The ease of use this provides would help widen the user base, and I > think the discipline of maintaining a consistent configuration scheme > will add to both understandability and ease of administration. As > long as the power to manually edit the config-files directly is still > available (w/o completely confusing the GUI tools), I don't see where > this has any big negatives (other than the obvious time/effort > involved in building the configuration framework in the first place). In other words, it will require using "sh", sourcing file(s), mandatory function style, dire commenting, and a good working knowledge of "sed" (that I'll likely become _much_ more familiar with). Can you use "POST" in sh-httpd or is this going to have to move to thttpd? Do you have an existing release config file form you would like to base off of, or do we do one from scatch? Every character in the McDonald's theme has a menu item associated with it except Ronald, what exactly does Ronald represent? hehe -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] weblet & the like
> > Personally, I think there's something fundamentally wrong > > with managing a firewall/router through a web-based interface, but it > > seems that I'm the only one who feels this way... > > Nope, your not alone. _Many_ of us feel exactly that way, but may don't > and this limits the user base. If this config weblet is loaded as a > package, you are only as unhappy as you make yourself :) IMHO, there's nothing inherently wrong with GUI config tools (properly secured). I would like to see a consistent configuration system for the next generation LEAF that allows text-based menu configiguration via scripts on the default system, with the option of adding a web GUI if desired (sort of a light-weight linuxconf that actually works). It should also be possible to edit config files by hand without confusing the config menu front-end. The ease of use this provides would help widen the user base, and I think the discipline of maintaining a consistent configuration scheme will add to both understandability and ease of administration. As long as the power to manually edit the config-files directly is still available (w/o completely confusing the GUI tools), I don't see where this has any big negatives (other than the obvious time/effort involved in building the configuration framework in the first place). Charles Steinkuehler http://lrp.steinkuehler.net http://c0wz.steinkuehler.net (lrp.c0wz.com mirror) ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] weblet & the like
> I would agree with everything there, but I feel that the standard CGI is > fine _on_ the distribution. SSL will be absolutely necessary for > anything run externally, which brings us back to the chicken-n-egg > question is sh-httpd configurable for SSL ? If you've got the space, sh-httpd (or pretty much *ANY* inted launched service, web-server or otherwise) should be able to run via SSL using the wrapper programs provided with OpenSSL. Charles Steinkuehler http://lrp.steinkuehler.net http://c0wz.steinkuehler.net (lrp.c0wz.com mirror) ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] weblet & the like
On Monday 04 February 2002 08:21, Angelacos, Nathan wrote: > Lynn wrote regarding the Mosquito distribution: > > I have been busy looking at some CGI options myself lately. :) > > Personally, I think there's something fundamentally wrong > with managing a firewall/router through a web-based interface, but it > seems that I'm the only one who feels this way... Nope, your not alone. _Many_ of us feel exactly that way, but may don't and this limits the user base. If this config weblet is loaded as a package, you are only as unhappy as you make yourself :) > I've been working on and off on integrating lua into a web server to > provide an inline embedded scripting language, similar to PHP. For > example: > The above generates a web page that "knows" the local hostname... you > get the idea (I hope.) I got micro_httpd working, but it only > supports GET requests, so I switched to working with mini_httpd. GET > requests work, but I'm still working on the correct approach for > POSTS... Kewl, it would need to POST, but the size (on a floppy) is the problem as you mentioned. > Advantages I see to this approach are: > > Let the web server handle the access control, logging, etc. (better > security) > web pages should be more portable across the LEAF distributions > mini_httpd can be built with SSL support, if desired > inline-scripting is cool > > Disadvantages mainly involve size: > The statically-linked lua library adds 50-70K to the web server > code; lua-enabled mini_httpd is just under 100K in size. (UPX gets it > to less than half of that, though). > > > Does anyone out there see a need/use for this kind of thing? Or do > you think the standard CGI scripting is fine? (I do realize you can > fit alot of weblet pages in 100K) I would agree with everything there, but I feel that the standard CGI is fine _on_ the distribution. SSL will be absolutely necessary for anything run externally, which brings us back to the chicken-n-egg question is sh-httpd configurable for SSL ? -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
[Leaf-devel] weblet & the like
Lynn wrote regarding the Mosquito distribution: > I have been busy looking at some CGI options myself lately. :) Personally, I think there's something fundamentally wrong with managing a firewall/router through a web-based interface, but it seems that I'm the only one who feels this way... I've been working on and off on integrating lua into a web server to provide an inline embedded scripting language, similar to PHP. For example: Configuration page for ... Configuration page for The above generates a web page that "knows" the local hostname... you get the idea (I hope.) I got micro_httpd working, but it only supports GET requests, so I switched to working with mini_httpd. GET requests work, but I'm still working on the correct approach for POSTS... Advantages I see to this approach are: Let the web server handle the access control, logging, etc. (better security) web pages should be more portable across the LEAF distributions mini_httpd can be built with SSL support, if desired inline-scripting is cool Disadvantages mainly involve size: The statically-linked lua library adds 50-70K to the web server code; lua-enabled mini_httpd is just under 100K in size. (UPX gets it to less than half of that, though). Does anyone out there see a need/use for this kind of thing? Or do you think the standard CGI scripting is fine? (I do realize you can fit alot of weblet pages in 100K) ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
