Hi KP at 27.07.2011 17:20, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: > Hi Erich; > > Am Mittwoch, 27. Juli 2011, 08:16:29 schrieb Erich Titl: >> Hi KP >> >> at 26.07.2011 20:45, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: >>> Hi Erich; >>> >>> Am Montag, 25. Juli 2011, 16:13:08 schrieb Erich Titl: >>>> KP >>>> >>>> at 25.07.2011 10:12, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: >>>>> Hi Erich; >>>>> >>>>> Am Sonntag, 24. Juli 2011, 23:03:23 schrieb Erich Titl: >>>>>> HI KP >> >> ... >> >>>>> Updated webconf.lrp and get an error >>>>> >>>>> haserl CGI Error >>>>> Unknown operation near line 85 of lrcfg.cgi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> at a lot of places (e.g. every time I call a config file in "expert >>>>> mode"). The same with "Backup Settings", "DSL Settings" and >>>>> "Dropbear.ssh". >>>> >>>> Sounds like there is old syntax in the .cgi files. This does not happen >>>> at my site. The reason being that I am using haserl 0.9 for quite some >>>> years now. >> >> ... >> >>>> Having the .cgi files in a tarball (as in webconf and lwp) makes it >>>> difficult to find out the differences, also possible enhancements which >>>> partially are commented poorly. >>>> >>>> To make it easier for future enhancement I will explode the webconf >>>> tarball in my local experimental branch and introduce single files. >>> >>> You're right and I did the same for lwp package; fixed also config.cgi, >>> pppoe.cgi and dropbear.cgi. >> >> Mhhhh... I have not seen that yet. Did you commit to master? > > Yes; see > http://leaf.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=leaf/bering-uclibc;a=summary > > >>>> I can also look at the current lwp files, they should be pretty easy to >>>> fix, just tedious to find the problems without being able to compare. >>>> >>>> The easiest way to get quick results is to report single findings here. >>>> I have not been able to find a ticket for it. >>> >>> See tickets #58 and #60. >>> >>> You asked for it :) >> >> I did... just looked at #58, no description of the error though. I will >> look at the line you mentioned in lrcfg.cgi. >> >> Concerning #60 this does IMHO not belong to the webconf package, as long >> as we have dnscache. I for once do not use dnsmasq, but dnscache and >> would not want to clutter my web interface with stuff I don't install. >> That is the main reason why I would like to see the .cgi files merged >> into the .lrp packages. This way we could avoid things like that at a >> very low overhead. > > The same is true for lwp's :)
I don't get you here? If and only if we have .lwp files for the respective packages we need to have a mechanism which copies both to the medium. If the names differ, then we have to enter them manually or maybe automatically to webconf.conf. This is redundant. And we have to build .lwp files. Even if it is easy with buildlwp.sh it is still a separate task which also needs to be maintained. We do have a framework to add arbitrary files to the .lrp file though. > > I'll put it back, but then you'll better remove dnsmasq.cgi from webconf > tarball. Yes, that is better. (Put it into dnsmasq.lrp :-) ) cheers Erich
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Kryptografische Unterschrift
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Got Input? Slashdot Needs You. Take our quick survey online. Come on, we don't ask for help often. Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek. http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
_______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
