On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:17 AM, David F. Skoll
wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 10:07:56 -0700
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> In other words, LedgerSMB doesn't authenticate users in 1.3, nor is it
>> the final check against exceeding permissions. These are both handled
>> by PostgreSQL.
>
> Really?
On Sun, 29 May 2011 00:07:42 +0200
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
[...]
> > It also makes testing annoying because when you blow away a test
> > database, you also have to remember to blow away any LSMB users. If
> > auth info were stored in the database itself, this wouldn't be a
> > problem.
> Neithe
Hi Chris,
Below you'll find a new file which I hope can replace INSTALL and
INSTALL.manual. The file refers to my database setup script submitted
earlier to simplify the instructions.
Let me know your comments!
Bye,
Erik.
-
Contents
---
Hi David,
> Yep. And none of those appeals to me. I like LSMB to maintain its
> own database of users independent of all of those other possibilities.
>
>> What specifically goes wrong in your server management processes when
>> LSMB uses PostgreSQL authentication, taking into account that 1.3
On 28/05/2011 19:09, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:08:39 +0100
Lyle wrote:
I'm not sure I like a web-based interface. This makes automated
installations and testing much harder.
Wouldn't Test::WWW::Mechanize make this pretty straight forward?
Ugh. That's really a bad approach
On Sat, 28 May 2011 21:06:44 +0200
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> You're aware that the PostgreSQL versions nowadays allow
> authentication against its own database, Kerberos,
> LDAP/ActiveDirectory and PAM out of the box?
Yep. And none of those appeals to me. I like LSMB to maintain its
own database
On Sat, 28 May 2011 10:07:56 -0700
Chris Travers wrote:
> In other words, LedgerSMB doesn't authenticate users in 1.3, nor is it
> the final check against exceeding permissions. These are both handled
> by PostgreSQL.
Really?
I was unaware of that. I do not like that approach. We run our LSM
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Adam Thompson wrote:
>>> Where would the data be stored? Do we require write permissions to
>>> the ledgersmb directory?
>>
>> Um, in the case I was describing, yes, I think so. In the examples I've
>> seen
Hi David,
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 8:17 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 10:07:56 -0700
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> In other words, LedgerSMB doesn't authenticate users in 1.3, nor is it
>> the final check against exceeding permissions. These are both handled
>> by PostgreSQL.
>
>
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Lyle wrote:
> On 27/05/2011 22:03, Chris Travers wrote:
>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Chris Bennett
>> wrote:
>>> I also agree, I don't want apache2 on my webserver.
>>> I will only be running it locally.
>> What web server would you prefer to be running?
>
On Sat, 28 May 2011 10:07:56 -0700
Chris Travers wrote:
> In other words, LedgerSMB doesn't authenticate users in 1.3, nor is it
> the final check against exceeding permissions. These are both handled
> by PostgreSQL.
Really?
I was unaware of that. I do not like that approach. We run our LSM
On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:08:39 +0100
Lyle wrote:
> > I'm not sure I like a web-based interface. This makes automated
> > installations and testing much harder.
> Wouldn't Test::WWW::Mechanize make this pretty straight forward?
Ugh. That's really a bad approach; it means you need a working
web s
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Adam Thompson wrote:
>> Where would the data be stored? Do we require write permissions to
>> the ledgersmb directory?
>
> Um, in the case I was describing, yes, I think so. In the examples I've
> seen, the administrator has the choice of either configuring their
> Where would the data be stored? Do we require write permissions to
> the ledgersmb directory?
Um, in the case I was describing, yes, I think so. In the examples I've
seen, the administrator has the choice of either configuring their
webserver & system to allow the PHP script to write to the
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Lyle wrote:
> On 27/05/2011 22:03, Chris Travers wrote:
>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Chris Bennett
>> wrote:
>>> I also agree, I don't want apache2 on my webserver.
>>> I will only be running it locally.
>> What web server would you prefer to be running?
>
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Adam Thompson wrote:
>> > I would personally prefer as much possible to be integrated into the
>> > app's first run, although I don't necessarily expect that in 1.3.
>>
>> I don't think it's safe to do that. With 1.3, you actually have to
>> specify a
>> database
On 27/05/2011 22:03, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Chris Bennett
> wrote:
>> I also agree, I don't want apache2 on my webserver.
>> I will only be running it locally.
> What web server would you prefer to be running?
Personally I don't think open source projects like th
On 27/05/2011 21:43, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2011 13:07:06 -0700
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> Currently there are two approaches to installing databases in Perl.
>> The first (initiate.pl) has officially been moved to add-ons and is a
>> web-based interface for this process. I have
> > I would personally prefer as much possible to be integrated into the
> > app's first run, although I don't necessarily expect that in 1.3.
>
> I don't think it's safe to do that. With 1.3, you actually have to
> specify a
> database to log in. The "central database" is now the interdatabase
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke [mailto:account...@lists.tacticus.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 21:28
> To: Development discussion for LedgerSMB
> Subject: Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] State of Perl-based database setup
> utilities for LedgerSMB 1.3
>
> On Fri, 27 May 2011, Chris Travers wr
20 matches
Mail list logo
