combined reply to several posts and some ideas (at the bottom):
On Thursday 29 August 2002 14:59, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> > to leaf-devel. Is anyone ready to work on and/or discuss any
> > sections of this???
>
> I can commit to any updates/modifications to sh-httpd that may be
> required.
I also agree perl would be an overkill. What we need is to create a
framework like we have for lrps for web based management. Every lrp must
have a web based config template that will be used by a master web script.
The template format and scripting needs to be developed and standardised.
I'm not
> Hi Eric, Lynn, Charles
>
> Asking for permission to come aboard.
Dive right in! You'll either sink or swim.
Please don't swim within 30 minutes of eating.
Remember your life-preserver.
Go with the flow, swim against the current, or maybe just try treading
water...your preference.
Please keep y
Hi Eric, Lynn, Charles
Asking for permission to come aboard.
regards
Erich
THINK
Püntenstrasse 39
8143 Stallikon
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Fingerprint: BC9A 25BC 3954 3BC8 C024 8D8A B7D4 FF9D 05B8 0A16
---
This sf.net email is sponsore
Hello Charles, Lynn , list
> > > Alternatively, use the same fields and write the
> > > engine in shell.script or php using sh-httpd. or a
> > > small server (boa, thttpd)
> >
> > It can be done with sh-httpd. Mosquito has used thttpd,
> > but thttpd is considerably larger (and more versitile).
>
> > Alternatively, use the same fields and write the
> > engine in shell.script or php using sh-httpd. or a
> > small server (boa, thttpd)
>
> It can be done with sh-httpd. Mosquito has used thttpd,
> but thttpd is considerably larger (and more versitile).
> My vote would be to use sh-httpd w/POST
On Wednesday 28 August 2002 12:56, Eric Wolzak wrote:
(snip)
I agree with your summary Eric.
> Advantage of webmin, there are all kinds of
> modules. Adaption is much easier than building
> from scratch.
>
> Disadvantage memory and CPU.
I would be against using Perl personally.
Porting Webmin w
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:11:13 -0500
"guitarlynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > +packages +glibc-2.0
> > > +glibc-2.1
> > > +glibc-none
> > > +binaries
> > >
> > > I believe the seperation of glibc within packages will avoid
> > > confusion between p
