Le Dimanche 28 Juillet 2002 02:42, Dan Harkless a �crit : > Jacques Nilo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi. What's the best way to report bugs in Bering? Just post here? > > > Email Jacques Nilo and Eric Wolzak directly? Use the sourceforge.net > > > tracker (I see only 11 LEAF bugs have ever been reported there)? > > > > The devel-list is fine. > > Okay, noted. Not sure if leaf-devel allows non-subscribers to post, > though. Guess I'll find out with this post (attempt). If it does get > through, please cc me on any followup posts, as otherwise I won't see them. > > > The bug tracking feature is better but as you mentioned rarely used. > > Okay. Well, I'd be happy to help get it into more common usage by using it > myself. One question, though. Because it's rarely-used, does that mean > it's also rarely-checked by you guys, and a leaf-devel post is less likely > to slip through the cracks? Or does the bug-tracking have some kind of > feature to automatically email you guys when new bugs are reported? Yes
> > cc to myself or Eric only fills up our mailing boxes > > Right. I wasn't planning on cc'ing you on mailing list posts, just asking > whether problems should be sent to you directly, bypassing the lists. This > is currently what the installation guide and user's guide say to do. > > > > Ditto for the installation and user's guides -- what's the best way to > > > give feedback? > > > > Same as above. > > Although, unlike the above, it's presumably not the case that "The bug > tracking feature is better", eh? :-) > Okay, a couple of documentation notes will be in a forthcoming leaf-devel > post. > > > > In any case, doing a leaf-user archive search, it looks like one of the > > > bugs I was going to report (sh-httpd should be in group 4 rather than > > > 10, or it can't read log files after they get cycled) has already been > > > discussed. Since the bug tracking isn't really used, though, it's not > > > really possible to verify that this will be addressed in the successor > > > to 1.0-rc3... > > > > It will. See the end of the following message: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg05329.htm > >l > > Um, not sure how that mail applies -- it's talking about gzip, not the > sh-httpd permissions problem. OK. That one will be addressed in rc4 as well . I am still investigating this grsecurity pb > > > I have a PPPoE system and I was very consternated that the plog script > > > mentioned in the user's guide never gave me any output. > > > > > > I figured out the problem with the script: > > > > > > #!/bin/sh > > > > > > if [ -s /var/log/ppp.log ]; then > > > exec tail "$@" /var/log/ppp.log > > > else > > > exec tail "$@" /var/log/syslog | grep ' \(pppd\|chat\)\[' > > > fi > > > > This is the original Debian plog script. > > Okay, then it's a bug in Debian, rather than a bug in LEAF, bug it's still > a bug. It doesn't make sense for the tail to be on the front end. If > you've got other things going to your log besides PPP messages, then plog > will incorrectly make it appear that you have none of the latter (or will > show an unpredictable and incomplete number of them). It should be grep > followed by tail. > > It's not particularly useful to get a list of "whatever PPP messages happen > to appear amongst the last 10 (or N) general syslog messages". It would be > particularly useful to get "the last 10 (or N) PPP messages", and indeed > that's inherently how the first half of the 'if' works (the PPP case), so > why should the second half of the 'if' (the PPPoE case) work differently? > > > > The problem is that only the last few messages from the log (of any > > > kind) are tailed, so it's unsurprising that usually none of them are > > > pppd messages. If tail is going to be used, the tail should be on the > > > other end: > > > > > > exec grep ' \(pppd\|chat\)\[' /var/log/syslog | tail "$@" > > > > > > Personally, though, I'd prefer it if the tail were taken out > > > completely, especially since the BusyBox tail doesn't actually support > > > -<number_of_lines_to_tail>, making that "$@" useless right now. > > > > Wrong. the "$@" parameter is precisely what makes this plog flexible: you > > can use it to give extra parameters to tail > > Okay. I assumed when tail failed to support the -<number_of_lines_to_tail> > option that every other version of tail in the universe supports, that it > didn't support any options at all. In that case I guess I withdraw my > suggestion about removing the tail, but the Bering user's guide should be > modified to warn that plog only prints the last 10 PPP messages by default > (or, it *will* work that way if you follow my suggestion of switching > around the pipeline; else, you'll have to warn that plog prints some > unpredictable number of the last PPP messages, between 0 and 10). > > > >From bb manual available options are: > > > > Options: > > > > -c N[kbm] output the last N bytes > > -n N[kbm] print last N lines instead of last 10 > > -f output data as the file grows > > -q never output headers giving file names > > -s SEC wait SEC seconds between reads with -f > > -v always output headers giving file names > > Very useful information to have. Is the BusyBox manual available within > Bering, by default or as an add-on .lrp? If not, where is it available for > outside-Bering use? I don't think the installation or user's guides > address this important issue (and they should). The busybox manual is here: http://www.busybox.net/downloads/BusyBox.html No lrp package planned for that one :-) We are talking about a floppy based distro aren't we ? > > > Personally, I'd prefer it if plog just printed _all_ the pppd messages, > > > leaving it to the user to pipe that output into more or tail as > > > desired. > > > > I 'll leave as it is in the distro. As a policy I try to stick as much as > > possible to Debian standards. There only very few exception (ifup/down > > being the most notable) for space consideration. > > Very understandable, but as I said, I think the Debian plog is faulty (and > perhaps they've even fixed it in a recent update). Perhaps you could fix > it "locally" in rc4 and report the bug to the Debian guys (if they haven't > fixed it already) so that in the future LEAF's plog will be in sync with > theirs, and both will have the bugfix. Well it is still the one which was released in theJuly Woody stable release. Will think more about your suggested change for rc4 Jacques > > You can easily adapt it to your taste if you want. > > I don't think it's a matter of taste. I think plog is objectively wrong as > it stands. And I _have_ modified my copy. I'm trying to think beyond > myself -- when plog printed no output, I assumed something was broken (like > pppd not doing any logging at all). Other people wouldn't have to face > this confusing issue if the pipeline were just switched around so that you > always get _some_ output, if indeed pppd has logged anything. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
