Menu
▾
▴
webadmin-devel — The webmin development mailing list
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
(13) |
Feb
(24) |
Mar
(23) |
Apr
(11) |
May
(18) |
Jun
(90) |
Jul
(29) |
Aug
(26) |
Sep
(37) |
Oct
(10) |
Nov
(31) |
Dec
(11) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
(45) |
Feb
(18) |
Mar
(12) |
Apr
(7) |
May
(10) |
Jun
(62) |
Jul
(8) |
Aug
(40) |
Sep
(41) |
Oct
(43) |
Nov
(29) |
Dec
(36) |
| 2003 |
Jan
(25) |
Feb
(9) |
Mar
(11) |
Apr
(13) |
May
(19) |
Jun
(19) |
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(4) |
Sep
(109) |
Oct
(73) |
Nov
(69) |
Dec
(21) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(21) |
Feb
(33) |
Mar
(31) |
Apr
(25) |
May
(33) |
Jun
(42) |
Jul
(47) |
Aug
(12) |
Sep
(41) |
Oct
(47) |
Nov
(30) |
Dec
(19) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(23) |
Mar
(21) |
Apr
(26) |
May
(21) |
Jun
(16) |
Jul
(17) |
Aug
(7) |
Sep
(8) |
Oct
(13) |
Nov
(7) |
Dec
(10) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(10) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(4) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(2) |
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
(6) |
Jul
(6) |
Aug
(8) |
Sep
(3) |
Oct
(21) |
Nov
(4) |
Dec
(6) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(11) |
Feb
(28) |
Mar
(26) |
Apr
(9) |
May
(2) |
Jun
(10) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(20) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2009 |
Jan
(4) |
Feb
(10) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(24) |
May
(22) |
Jun
(18) |
Jul
(15) |
Aug
(21) |
Sep
(4) |
Oct
(7) |
Nov
(6) |
Dec
|
| 2010 |
Jan
|
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(13) |
Apr
|
May
(4) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(4) |
Sep
(6) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
| 2011 |
Jan
(18) |
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(23) |
Apr
(4) |
May
(5) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(9) |
Oct
|
Nov
(5) |
Dec
|
| 2012 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(6) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2013 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(31) |
Apr
(3) |
May
|
Jun
(2) |
Jul
(6) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(4) |
Nov
|
Dec
(7) |
| 2014 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(9) |
Apr
(4) |
May
(7) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
|
Aug
(2) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(4) |
Dec
|
| 2016 |
Jan
|
Feb
(4) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2017 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(5) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2019 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(7) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2020 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(2) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2022 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Dave V. A. <da...@va...> - 2003-10-20 22:18:59
|
Two happenings when trying to add new virtual domains: 1. Group for Unix user: (x) Existing Group "mailchk". I had just created & selected from popup list. When "Creating Server" it complained the group already existed. Yep, it did. Also doing IP-based. 2. Removed the group, and tried again, this time the "input fields went light gray & nothing happened - or it bombed! Using new Redhat 9.0 Dave Van Abel:) http://vanabel.com - Open Source Business Solutions http://perlsources.com - Open Source Applications http://ipnhosting.com - IPN Hosting Services http://davevanabel.com - Dedicated Email Server with Spam Control 303-249-3855 (Colorado) 415-462-1573 (California) Yahoo Instant Messenger - dave_vanabel Yahoo Instant Messenger - dave_vanabel2 |
|
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2003-10-14 10:02:20
|
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 18:43, Kevin Golding wrote:
> How can I get the location of the smb.conf file from the samba module for
> use in my own module please?
You could use code like this :
%sconfig = &foreign_config("samba");
open(SAMBACONF, $sconfig{'smb_conf'});
etc..
However, if your module needs to actually update Samba config file
parameters, a better option may be to foreign-call the functions in
samba-lib.pl directly.
- Jamie
|
|
From: <we...@kg...> - 2003-10-14 08:43:49
|
How can I get the location of the smb.conf file from the samba module for use in my own module please? Regards, Kevin Golding |
|
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2003-10-09 00:20:26
|
Marius Popovici wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am currently working on a Webmin module and I was wondering if
> there is session support in miniserv. I looked through the docs and i
> couldn't find anything on the subject so if anyone knows something the
> help would be appreciated.
>
> What i am trying to do is the following. I have some module
> configuration properties that are frequently requested by many CGIs and
> i want to avoid reading this stuff from a configuration file everytime
> it is needed. Instead i want to create a ConfigurationProperties object
> that is stored in the server's session so it can be accessed very
> quickly.
Webmin doesn't have any kind of automatic session object tracking like
JSP scripts or servlets do, but you can get the current session ID
from the $session_id global variable. This could then be used as a key
to lookup an entry in a DBM or text file that your module maintains,
to store extra information associated with the session.
The code might look something like :
dbmopen(%sessiondata, "$module_config_directory/sessiondata", 0700);
# set_session_data(hashreference)
sub set_session_data
{
$sessiondata{$session_id} = &serialize_variable($_[0]);
}
# get_session_data()
# Returns a hash reference
sub get_session_data
{
return &unserialise_variable($sessiondata{$session_id});
}
Note the use of the serialize_variable and unserialise_variable
standard functions to convert an arbitrary Perl hash to and from a
string that can be safely stored in the DBM.
- Jamie
|
|
From: Larry G. <Li...@IS...> - 2003-10-08 21:26:07
|
Sending this to the general list and devel lists as some experienced Perl programmers do not belong to the devel list. -- I am trying to update the squidGuard module to read directly from and write directly to the squidGuard db files. I am using DB_File and do have code that works. Trying to list the entire 48536 porn domains is slower than molasses and slower than reading directly from text files. I expect latency from my PII 450 test box and the number of domains, but this is kind of ridiculous. 1) Is it normal that the read from a db file takes longer than a text file? 2) Any general suggestions on reading/writing to db files? 3) Does code already exist in Webmin that I might be better served looking at? Thanks for your time! --Larry |
|
From: Marius P. <ma...@4n...> - 2003-10-08 12:22:51
|
Hi all, I am currently working on a Webmin module and I was wondering if there is session support in miniserv. I looked through the docs and i couldn't find anything on the subject so if anyone knows something the help would be appreciated. What i am trying to do is the following. I have some module configuration properties that are frequently requested by many CGIs and i want to avoid reading this stuff from a configuration file everytime it is needed. Instead i want to create a ConfigurationProperties object that is stored in the server's session so it can be accessed very quickly. Thanks -- Marius Popovici <ma...@4n...> 4NET |
|
From: Larry G. <Li...@IS...> - 2003-10-06 23:37:22
|
It appears that 'Red Hat Linux Project' is replaced by 'The Fedora Project'. The distributions have transitioned from 'Red Hat' to 'Fedora Core'. The release schedule indicates that the name of the next release will be called 'Fedora Core 1' (http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/). The Fedora Project home page indicates that "The project will produce time-based releases of Fedora Core . . ." which also supports the naming convention. There is no mention of changing the code name 'Severn'. --Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: Jamie Cameron > I guess the real question is what Redhat is going to call > their next free release - will it be branded 'Redhat 10', or > 'Fedora 1.0' ? That will determine the name that Webmin uses > internally .. > > - Jamie |
|
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2003-10-06 22:28:45
|
On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 22:35, jam...@te... wrote: > > That sounds like a pretty good solution as well - although the redhat > > version number should be 10 instead of 10.0, as redhat seems to have > > dropped the .0 in versions 8 and 9 :) > > Actually, Jamie, I am not sure that 10 would be appropriate, as what comes > out of Fedora does not seem to be > tied to the old versioning. Basically RH, is going to focus on their > enterprise products, while still giving internal > developer bandwidth to Fedora. The old non-commercial version of RH is for > all intensive purposes no more, > and what is in its places is the Fedora Core which comes from the Fedora > project. I guess the real question is what Redhat is going to call their next free release - will it be branded 'Redhat 10', or 'Fedora 1.0' ? That will determine the name that Webmin uses internally .. - Jamie |
|
From: <jam...@te...> - 2003-10-06 12:36:00
|
> That sounds like a pretty good solution as well - although the redhat > version number should be 10 instead of 10.0, as redhat seems to have > dropped the .0 in versions 8 and 9 :) Actually, Jamie, I am not sure that 10 would be appropriate, as what comes out of Fedora does not seem to be tied to the old versioning. Basically RH, is going to focus on their enterprise products, while still giving internal developer bandwidth to Fedora. The old non-commercial version of RH is for all intensive purposes no more, and what is in its places is the Fedora Core which comes from the Fedora project. Cheers...james |
|
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2003-10-06 00:21:21
|
That sounds like a pretty good solution as well - although the redhat version number should be 10 instead of 10.0, as redhat seems to have dropped the .0 in versions 8 and 9 :) - Jamie Dan Tucny wrote: > The Fedora Project is what was to be Red Hat Linux 10. Out of the Fedora > Project come a couple of things... Fedora Core, the core distro, same > sort of thing as you would have had with Red Hat Linux... Fedora Extras, > Fedora Alternatives & Fedora Legacy... > > Anyway... > > How about this then? > > The following lines in os_list.txt... > > Fedora Core 0.94 redhat-linux 10.0 > $etc_issue =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/i || `cat /etc/redhat-release > 2>&1` =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/ > Fedora Core 0.95 redhat-linux 10.0 > $etc_issue =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.95\s/i || `cat /etc/redhat-release > 2>&1` =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.95\s/ > Fedora Core 1.0 redhat-linux 10.0 > $etc_issue =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s1(\.0\)?s/i || `cat /etc/redhat-release > 2>&1` =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s1(\.0)?\s/ > > That should cover us for upto and including release 1 of Fedora Core... > I'll revisit the port once the test cycle for release 2 kicks off, > that's when there will likely be changes and there won't be a Red Hat > linux to base it on... Hopefully by then things will be a bit cleared... > > How's that sound?? > > Dan > > > > On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 13:50, Jamie Cameron wrote: > >> From reading their site, it looks like Fedora is a beta/development >>version of the next freely available redhat release, so I think it >>makes sense to have webmin treat it as a redhat variant like versions >>7.3, 8 and 9. >> >>However, since they don't seem to be planning to call the next >>official release 'redhat fedora 1.0' rather than 'redhat 10', webmin >>should use that version number as well. Probably the best solution is >>webmin's internal name for Fedora to remain as 'redhat-linux', but for >>the version number to be 'fedora-1.0'. >> >>So the os_list.txt entry would be like : >> >>Redhat Linux Fedora 1.0 redhat-linux fedora-1.0 $etc_issue >>=~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/i || `cat etc/redhat-release 2>&1` =~ >>/fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/ >> >>And config files would be named like config-redhat-linux-fedora-1.0, >>and module.info os_support line entries (where needed) would be like >>redhat-linux/fedora-1.0 . I don't see any need to treat the current >>betas of fedora (like 0.94) any different from the actual 1.0 release, >>as hopefully they will be totally compatible. >> >>Any chance you could modify your patch to use this naming scheme? >> >> - Jamie >> >>Dan Tucny wrote: >> >>>If this was to support a code named prerelease beta of Redhat Linux e.g. >>>Severn, then having it as Redhat Linux Severn with a version of severn >>>would be fine... >>> >>>However... Redhat Linux (the product) is no more... (The Redhat >>>Enterprise Linux product does still exist) >>> >>>What's actually happened is that what may have originally been planned >>>to be Redhat Linux 10 has in fact become the starting point of the >>>Fedora Project. Fedora Core 0.94 is the current beta/test 2, there will >>>be a beta/test 3 coming out in the next couple of weeks followed by >>>release 1 at the beginning of November... After this the cycle will >>>start for release 2 etc. Lots could change between releases... >>> >>>Check out http://fedora.redhat.com for more info... >>> >>>I think it should be split out from Redhat, if for nothing else, to make >>>it easier to cater for release differences in fedora core... However... >>>I respect that webmin is your project, so I'll leave the decision in >>>your hands :) >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>Dan >>> >>>On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 05:00, Jamie Cameron wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Perhaps then it should be treated as a new version of Redhat.. In your >>>>patch, you named all the config files config-fedora-core, when they >>>>really should have been config-redhat-linux-fedora. The os_list.txt >>>>line would be more like : >>>> >>>>Redhat Linux Fedora redhat-linux fedora $etc_issue =~ >>>>/fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/i || `cat /etc/redhat-release 2>&1` =~ >>>>/fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/ >>>> >>>>This way, in modules where Fedora doesn't differ from 'standard' >>>>Redhat at all, there is no need for a separate config file, or >>>>addition to the os_support= entry in module.info files.. and config >>>>files like config-*-linux will be used on Fedora as well. >>>> >>>>Of course, if it is radically different from the standard Redhat >>>>releases then this may not make sense. Is it? >>>> >>>> - Jamie >>>> >>>>Dan Tucny wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>It was based virtually entirely on RH10... I was thinking about making >>>>>webmin just treat Fedora as RH10, but decided against it in the >>>>>interests of preparing for the possibility of future changes without >>>>>impacting the existing RH code and 'doing a proper job' of the port >>>>>etc... >>>>> >>>>>Dan >>>>> >>>>>On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 04:41, Jamie Cameron wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Your patch looks cool, but I think it would have made more sense to >>>>>>have webmin treat Fedora as another Redhat version, or better still the >>>>>>same as an existing version. Was your port based on one of the existing RH >>>>>>releases, such as 9 or 10? >>>>>> >>>>>>- Jamie >>>>>> >>>>>>Dan Tucny <da...@tu...> wrote .. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I've been doing a bit of work porting the 1.113 development release of >>>>>>>webmin to Fedora Core 0.94, Test 2, Severn... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It all appears to work so I've made a patch... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The patch can be found on the webmin sourceforge site under patches... >>>>>>>specifically... >>>>>>>https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=816843&group_id=17457&atid=317457 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I hope it's useful... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks, |
|
From: Dan T. <da...@tu...> - 2003-10-05 22:47:24
|
The Fedora Project is what was to be Red Hat Linux 10. Out of the Fedora Project come a couple of things... Fedora Core, the core distro, same sort of thing as you would have had with Red Hat Linux... Fedora Extras, Fedora Alternatives & Fedora Legacy... Anyway... How about this then? The following lines in os_list.txt... Fedora Core 0.94 redhat-linux 10.0 $etc_issue =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/i || `cat /etc/redhat-release 2>&1` =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/ Fedora Core 0.95 redhat-linux 10.0 $etc_issue =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.95\s/i || `cat /etc/redhat-release 2>&1` =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.95\s/ Fedora Core 1.0 redhat-linux 10.0 $etc_issue =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s1(\.0\)?s/i || `cat /etc/redhat-release 2>&1` =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s1(\.0)?\s/ That should cover us for upto and including release 1 of Fedora Core... I'll revisit the port once the test cycle for release 2 kicks off, that's when there will likely be changes and there won't be a Red Hat linux to base it on... Hopefully by then things will be a bit cleared... How's that sound?? Dan On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 13:50, Jamie Cameron wrote: > From reading their site, it looks like Fedora is a beta/development > version of the next freely available redhat release, so I think it > makes sense to have webmin treat it as a redhat variant like versions > 7.3, 8 and 9. > > However, since they don't seem to be planning to call the next > official release 'redhat fedora 1.0' rather than 'redhat 10', webmin > should use that version number as well. Probably the best solution is > webmin's internal name for Fedora to remain as 'redhat-linux', but for > the version number to be 'fedora-1.0'. > > So the os_list.txt entry would be like : > > Redhat Linux Fedora 1.0 redhat-linux fedora-1.0 $etc_issue > =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/i || `cat etc/redhat-release 2>&1` =~ > /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/ > > And config files would be named like config-redhat-linux-fedora-1.0, > and module.info os_support line entries (where needed) would be like > redhat-linux/fedora-1.0 . I don't see any need to treat the current > betas of fedora (like 0.94) any different from the actual 1.0 release, > as hopefully they will be totally compatible. > > Any chance you could modify your patch to use this naming scheme? > > - Jamie > > Dan Tucny wrote: > > If this was to support a code named prerelease beta of Redhat Linux e.g. > > Severn, then having it as Redhat Linux Severn with a version of severn > > would be fine... > > > > However... Redhat Linux (the product) is no more... (The Redhat > > Enterprise Linux product does still exist) > > > > What's actually happened is that what may have originally been planned > > to be Redhat Linux 10 has in fact become the starting point of the > > Fedora Project. Fedora Core 0.94 is the current beta/test 2, there will > > be a beta/test 3 coming out in the next couple of weeks followed by > > release 1 at the beginning of November... After this the cycle will > > start for release 2 etc. Lots could change between releases... > > > > Check out http://fedora.redhat.com for more info... > > > > I think it should be split out from Redhat, if for nothing else, to make > > it easier to cater for release differences in fedora core... However... > > I respect that webmin is your project, so I'll leave the decision in > > your hands :) > > > > Thanks, > > > > Dan > > > > On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 05:00, Jamie Cameron wrote: > > > >>Perhaps then it should be treated as a new version of Redhat.. In your > >>patch, you named all the config files config-fedora-core, when they > >>really should have been config-redhat-linux-fedora. The os_list.txt > >>line would be more like : > >> > >>Redhat Linux Fedora redhat-linux fedora $etc_issue =~ > >>/fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/i || `cat /etc/redhat-release 2>&1` =~ > >>/fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/ > >> > >>This way, in modules where Fedora doesn't differ from 'standard' > >>Redhat at all, there is no need for a separate config file, or > >>addition to the os_support= entry in module.info files.. and config > >>files like config-*-linux will be used on Fedora as well. > >> > >>Of course, if it is radically different from the standard Redhat > >>releases then this may not make sense. Is it? > >> > >> - Jamie > >> > >>Dan Tucny wrote: > >> > >>>It was based virtually entirely on RH10... I was thinking about making > >>>webmin just treat Fedora as RH10, but decided against it in the > >>>interests of preparing for the possibility of future changes without > >>>impacting the existing RH code and 'doing a proper job' of the port > >>>etc... > >>> > >>>Dan > >>> > >>>On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 04:41, Jamie Cameron wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Your patch looks cool, but I think it would have made more sense to > >>>>have webmin treat Fedora as another Redhat version, or better still the > >>>>same as an existing version. Was your port based on one of the existing RH > >>>>releases, such as 9 or 10? > >>>> > >>>>- Jamie > >>>> > >>>>Dan Tucny <da...@tu...> wrote .. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>>I've been doing a bit of work porting the 1.113 development release of > >>>>>webmin to Fedora Core 0.94, Test 2, Severn... > >>>>> > >>>>>It all appears to work so I've made a patch... > >>>>> > >>>>>The patch can be found on the webmin sourceforge site under patches... > >>>>>specifically... > >>>>>https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=816843&group_id=17457&atid=317457 > >>>>> > >>>>>I hope it's useful... > >>>>> > >>>>>Thanks, > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > - > Forwarded by the Webmin development list at web...@we... > To remove yourself from this list, go to > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-devel |
|
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2003-10-05 12:52:39
|
From reading their site, it looks like Fedora is a beta/development version of the next freely available redhat release, so I think it makes sense to have webmin treat it as a redhat variant like versions 7.3, 8 and 9. However, since they don't seem to be planning to call the next official release 'redhat fedora 1.0' rather than 'redhat 10', webmin should use that version number as well. Probably the best solution is webmin's internal name for Fedora to remain as 'redhat-linux', but for the version number to be 'fedora-1.0'. So the os_list.txt entry would be like : Redhat Linux Fedora 1.0 redhat-linux fedora-1.0 $etc_issue =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/i || `cat etc/redhat-release 2>&1` =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/ And config files would be named like config-redhat-linux-fedora-1.0, and module.info os_support line entries (where needed) would be like redhat-linux/fedora-1.0 . I don't see any need to treat the current betas of fedora (like 0.94) any different from the actual 1.0 release, as hopefully they will be totally compatible. Any chance you could modify your patch to use this naming scheme? - Jamie Dan Tucny wrote: > If this was to support a code named prerelease beta of Redhat Linux e.g. > Severn, then having it as Redhat Linux Severn with a version of severn > would be fine... > > However... Redhat Linux (the product) is no more... (The Redhat > Enterprise Linux product does still exist) > > What's actually happened is that what may have originally been planned > to be Redhat Linux 10 has in fact become the starting point of the > Fedora Project. Fedora Core 0.94 is the current beta/test 2, there will > be a beta/test 3 coming out in the next couple of weeks followed by > release 1 at the beginning of November... After this the cycle will > start for release 2 etc. Lots could change between releases... > > Check out http://fedora.redhat.com for more info... > > I think it should be split out from Redhat, if for nothing else, to make > it easier to cater for release differences in fedora core... However... > I respect that webmin is your project, so I'll leave the decision in > your hands :) > > Thanks, > > Dan > > On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 05:00, Jamie Cameron wrote: > >>Perhaps then it should be treated as a new version of Redhat.. In your >>patch, you named all the config files config-fedora-core, when they >>really should have been config-redhat-linux-fedora. The os_list.txt >>line would be more like : >> >>Redhat Linux Fedora redhat-linux fedora $etc_issue =~ >>/fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/i || `cat /etc/redhat-release 2>&1` =~ >>/fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/ >> >>This way, in modules where Fedora doesn't differ from 'standard' >>Redhat at all, there is no need for a separate config file, or >>addition to the os_support= entry in module.info files.. and config >>files like config-*-linux will be used on Fedora as well. >> >>Of course, if it is radically different from the standard Redhat >>releases then this may not make sense. Is it? >> >> - Jamie >> >>Dan Tucny wrote: >> >>>It was based virtually entirely on RH10... I was thinking about making >>>webmin just treat Fedora as RH10, but decided against it in the >>>interests of preparing for the possibility of future changes without >>>impacting the existing RH code and 'doing a proper job' of the port >>>etc... >>> >>>Dan >>> >>>On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 04:41, Jamie Cameron wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Your patch looks cool, but I think it would have made more sense to >>>>have webmin treat Fedora as another Redhat version, or better still the >>>>same as an existing version. Was your port based on one of the existing RH >>>>releases, such as 9 or 10? >>>> >>>>- Jamie >>>> >>>>Dan Tucny <da...@tu...> wrote .. >>>> >>>> >>>>>Hi, >>>>> >>>>>I've been doing a bit of work porting the 1.113 development release of >>>>>webmin to Fedora Core 0.94, Test 2, Severn... >>>>> >>>>>It all appears to work so I've made a patch... >>>>> >>>>>The patch can be found on the webmin sourceforge site under patches... >>>>>specifically... >>>>>https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=816843&group_id=17457&atid=317457 >>>>> >>>>>I hope it's useful... >>>>> >>>>>Thanks, |
|
From: Dan T. <da...@tu...> - 2003-10-04 11:51:53
|
If this was to support a code named prerelease beta of Redhat Linux e.g. Severn, then having it as Redhat Linux Severn with a version of severn would be fine... However... Redhat Linux (the product) is no more... (The Redhat Enterprise Linux product does still exist) What's actually happened is that what may have originally been planned to be Redhat Linux 10 has in fact become the starting point of the Fedora Project. Fedora Core 0.94 is the current beta/test 2, there will be a beta/test 3 coming out in the next couple of weeks followed by release 1 at the beginning of November... After this the cycle will start for release 2 etc. Lots could change between releases... Check out http://fedora.redhat.com for more info... I think it should be split out from Redhat, if for nothing else, to make it easier to cater for release differences in fedora core... However... I respect that webmin is your project, so I'll leave the decision in your hands :) Thanks, Dan On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 05:00, Jamie Cameron wrote: > Perhaps then it should be treated as a new version of Redhat.. In your > patch, you named all the config files config-fedora-core, when they > really should have been config-redhat-linux-fedora. The os_list.txt > line would be more like : > > Redhat Linux Fedora redhat-linux fedora $etc_issue =~ > /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/i || `cat /etc/redhat-release 2>&1` =~ > /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/ > > This way, in modules where Fedora doesn't differ from 'standard' > Redhat at all, there is no need for a separate config file, or > addition to the os_support= entry in module.info files.. and config > files like config-*-linux will be used on Fedora as well. > > Of course, if it is radically different from the standard Redhat > releases then this may not make sense. Is it? > > - Jamie > > Dan Tucny wrote: > > It was based virtually entirely on RH10... I was thinking about making > > webmin just treat Fedora as RH10, but decided against it in the > > interests of preparing for the possibility of future changes without > > impacting the existing RH code and 'doing a proper job' of the port > > etc... > > > > Dan > > > > On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 04:41, Jamie Cameron wrote: > > > >>Your patch looks cool, but I think it would have made more sense to > >>have webmin treat Fedora as another Redhat version, or better still the > >>same as an existing version. Was your port based on one of the existing RH > >>releases, such as 9 or 10? > >> > >> - Jamie > >> > >>Dan Tucny <da...@tu...> wrote .. > >> > >>>Hi, > >>> > >>>I've been doing a bit of work porting the 1.113 development release of > >>>webmin to Fedora Core 0.94, Test 2, Severn... > >>> > >>>It all appears to work so I've made a patch... > >>> > >>>The patch can be found on the webmin sourceforge site under patches... > >>>specifically... > >>>https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=816843&group_id=17457&atid=317457 > >>> > >>>I hope it's useful... > >>> > >>>Thanks, > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > - > Forwarded by the Webmin development list at web...@we... > To remove yourself from this list, go to > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-devel |
|
From: gehrigal d. n. - W. <we...@ge...> - 2003-10-04 11:10:41
|
Hi All I develope some modules for webmin and it works. But i got some feedback that the module "usermonitor" didn't work with the theme "MSC.Linux Theme Enhanced". I checked it myself and i got the same problem. The module wont be loaded completly. So i check the code, but i didn't find the bug. Is there anybody on this list, who could to help me please? Thanks! Bye Alexander Module: http://www.gehrigal.net/projects/webmin_usermonitor/ |
|
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2003-10-04 04:12:16
|
Perhaps then it should be treated as a new version of Redhat.. In your patch, you named all the config files config-fedora-core, when they really should have been config-redhat-linux-fedora. The os_list.txt line would be more like : Redhat Linux Fedora redhat-linux fedora $etc_issue =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/i || `cat /etc/redhat-release 2>&1` =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/ This way, in modules where Fedora doesn't differ from 'standard' Redhat at all, there is no need for a separate config file, or addition to the os_support= entry in module.info files.. and config files like config-*-linux will be used on Fedora as well. Of course, if it is radically different from the standard Redhat releases then this may not make sense. Is it? - Jamie Dan Tucny wrote: > It was based virtually entirely on RH10... I was thinking about making > webmin just treat Fedora as RH10, but decided against it in the > interests of preparing for the possibility of future changes without > impacting the existing RH code and 'doing a proper job' of the port > etc... > > Dan > > On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 04:41, Jamie Cameron wrote: > >>Your patch looks cool, but I think it would have made more sense to >>have webmin treat Fedora as another Redhat version, or better still the >>same as an existing version. Was your port based on one of the existing RH >>releases, such as 9 or 10? >> >> - Jamie >> >>Dan Tucny <da...@tu...> wrote .. >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>I've been doing a bit of work porting the 1.113 development release of >>>webmin to Fedora Core 0.94, Test 2, Severn... >>> >>>It all appears to work so I've made a patch... >>> >>>The patch can be found on the webmin sourceforge site under patches... >>>specifically... >>>https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=816843&group_id=17457&atid=317457 >>> >>>I hope it's useful... >>> >>>Thanks, |
|
From: Dan T. <da...@tu...> - 2003-10-03 07:33:24
|
It was based virtually entirely on RH10... I was thinking about making webmin just treat Fedora as RH10, but decided against it in the interests of preparing for the possibility of future changes without impacting the existing RH code and 'doing a proper job' of the port etc... Dan On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 04:41, Jamie Cameron wrote: > Your patch looks cool, but I think it would have made more sense to > have webmin treat Fedora as another Redhat version, or better still the > same as an existing version. Was your port based on one of the existing RH > releases, such as 9 or 10? > > - Jamie > > Dan Tucny <da...@tu...> wrote .. > > Hi, > > > > I've been doing a bit of work porting the 1.113 development release of > > webmin to Fedora Core 0.94, Test 2, Severn... > > > > It all appears to work so I've made a patch... > > > > The patch can be found on the webmin sourceforge site under patches... > > specifically... > > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=816843&group_id=17457&atid=317457 > > > > I hope it's useful... > > > > Thanks, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > - > > Forwarded by the Webmin development list at web...@we... > > To remove yourself from this list, go to > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-devel > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > - > Forwarded by the Webmin development list at web...@we... > To remove yourself from this list, go to > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-devel |
|
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2003-10-03 03:49:59
|
Your patch looks cool, but I think it would have made more sense to have webmin treat Fedora as another Redhat version, or better still the same as an existing version. Was your port based on one of the existing RH releases, such as 9 or 10? - Jamie Dan Tucny <da...@tu...> wrote .. > Hi, > > I've been doing a bit of work porting the 1.113 development release of > webmin to Fedora Core 0.94, Test 2, Severn... > > It all appears to work so I've made a patch... > > The patch can be found on the webmin sourceforge site under patches... > specifically... > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=816843&group_id=17457&atid=317457 > > I hope it's useful... > > Thanks, > > Dan > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > - > Forwarded by the Webmin development list at web...@we... > To remove yourself from this list, go to > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-devel |
|
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2003-10-02 23:12:35
|
Are the new secondary zones being added properly to the secondary hosting server? It almost sounds like they are, but that the changes aren't being applied, either by hitting the Apply Changes button in the BIND module on the secondary server, or using the Apply Changes On: button in the BIND module on the master. - Jamie On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 18:05, Luke Worthy wrote: > you've helped me so much, and it's really going along well, but I have one > little bugger of a problem that is doing my head in, and since it's 6 > o'clock, I am going to ask :) > > I have created my DNS manually, and now we are using the webmin, however, > everytime I create a master zone through webmin the zone transfers don't seem > to work :( > > I get the error message in the log: > > named[172]: received notify for zone 'mynewzoone.com': not authoritative > > > I have it so the webmin adds the entry to the named.conf (that works very well > I must say), but when the actual zone transfer information is sent out, the > slave server wont accept it. > > I have even gone to the trouble of re-writing it in the exact format of my > other entries (that do seem to work). > > And at least one of the domains has actually been delegated to our servers > officially. And it seems fine from doing a "dnsreport" test, except that a > DNS server is "lame" (which I think it is lame because it isn't accepting the > bloody transfer!! :) > > Do you think I set up some security option that is blocking the incoming > transfer? if so - why do the others work? > > > If you need more excerpts of files - np :) > > Guess I'm really needing to know if anyone has had this problem before? > > Luke > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > - > Forwarded by the Webmin development list at web...@we... > To remove yourself from this list, go to > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-devel |
|
From: Dan T. <da...@tu...> - 2003-10-02 22:56:12
|
Hi, I've been doing a bit of work porting the 1.113 development release of webmin to Fedora Core 0.94, Test 2, Severn... It all appears to work so I've made a patch... The patch can be found on the webmin sourceforge site under patches... specifically... https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=816843&group_id=17457&atid=317457 I hope it's useful... Thanks, Dan |
|
From: Martin M. <mar...@de...> - 2003-10-02 12:27:42
|
Moin, moin, ... Jamie Cameron <jca...@we...> wrote: >> Need one? ;-) mailman.mamemu.de has some bandwith available for this. > >I could set it up on sourceforge for free - but there probably isn't >enough virtualmin-related traffic for it to justify a separate list yet. Sorry, Jamie - I was just kidding. I kown that you could do it for free at SF ;-) maybe I should just stop joking on a thursday ... cu kind regards Martin Mewes --=20 COIM Deutschland GmbH - Novacote Flexpack Division c/o IT/IS-Department - Hamburg - Germany |
|
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2003-10-02 12:18:22
|
Martin Mewes <mar...@de...> wrote .. > Moin, moin, ... > > Jamie Cameron <jca...@we...> wrote: > > >> a) is this a good list for virtualmin questions too? :) > > > >Yes, since there isn't a separate virtualmin list yet. > > Need one? ;-) mailman.mamemu.de has some bandwith available for this. I could set it up on sourceforge for free - but there probably isn't enough virtualmin-related traffic for it to justify a separate list yet. - Jamie |
|
From: Luke W. <lu...@ad...> - 2003-10-02 08:00:25
|
you've helped me so much, and it's really going along well, but I have one little bugger of a problem that is doing my head in, and since it's 6 o'clock, I am going to ask :) I have created my DNS manually, and now we are using the webmin, however, everytime I create a master zone through webmin the zone transfers don't seem to work :( I get the error message in the log: named[172]: received notify for zone 'mynewzoone.com': not authoritative I have it so the webmin adds the entry to the named.conf (that works very well I must say), but when the actual zone transfer information is sent out, the slave server wont accept it. I have even gone to the trouble of re-writing it in the exact format of my other entries (that do seem to work). And at least one of the domains has actually been delegated to our servers officially. And it seems fine from doing a "dnsreport" test, except that a DNS server is "lame" (which I think it is lame because it isn't accepting the bloody transfer!! :) Do you think I set up some security option that is blocking the incoming transfer? if so - why do the others work? If you need more excerpts of files - np :) Guess I'm really needing to know if anyone has had this problem before? Luke |
|
From: Martin M. <mar...@de...> - 2003-10-02 06:41:01
|
Moin, moin, ... Jamie Cameron <jca...@we...> wrote: >> a) is this a good list for virtualmin questions too? :) > >Yes, since there isn't a separate virtualmin list yet. Need one? ;-) mailman.mamemu.de has some bandwith available for this. kind regards Martin Mewes --=20 Novacote Flexpack - Division of COIM Deutschland GmbH c/o IT/IS-Department - Hamburg - Germany |
|
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2003-10-02 00:06:06
|
Luke Worthy wrote:
> Wow Jamie thankyou....two other questions
>
> a) is this a good list for virtualmin questions too? :)
Yes, since there isn't a separate virtualmin list yet.
> b) With setting up virtualmin users etc, is it possible to auto-update the
> backup MX server (so when the pri MX goes down the users still get their mail
> on the backup)
This is not currently possible, but it is a pretty cool idea and may
not too hard.. I'll add it to my TODO list for virtualmin.
- Jamie
> Thanks again :)
>
> Luke
>
>
> -----------
>
> Luke Worthy <lu...@ad...> wrote ..
>
>>I have a question regarding changing some of the DNS module in webmin.
>>
>>when you create a new master zone, and leave the option "Records file"
>>as
>>automatic, it makes a file called "zonename.hosts" in the default directory
>>specified in the named.conf. I have been asked to change this to the naming
>>convention we use here in our office "pri.zonename".
>>
>>I have found it to be quite difficult as I am not much of a perl programmer,
>>but have hacked a few things together in the past.
>>
>>Now I found what I am guessing is the line in question in create_master.cgi,
>>so I changed it from:
>>
>>$in{'file'} = $base."/$in{'zone'}.hosts";
>>
>>to:
>>
>>$in{'file'} = $base."/pri.$in{'zone'}";
>>
>>and:
>>$in{'file'} = $base."/pri.'$in{'zone'}'";
>>
>>and have NFI - it still uses the filename "zonename.hosts" - I would have
>>at
>>least expected an error......
>
>
> There is actually way to do this without needing to make any code changes
> at all :-) On the main page of the BIND module, click on Module Config and
> change the 'Format for the name of forward zone files' to 'pri.ZONE'.
>
>
>>Also I have been asked to setup our DNS so that when someone enters in
>>the
>>master information on one server, it automatically creates the entries
>>on the
>>backup server, without having to do any more "clicking". Any ideas about
>>how
>>to do this?
>>
>>At the moment I have to go into the backup server and change the named.conf
>>file to add in the requested entry :)
>
>
> This is actually possible as well.. You need to install webmin on the slave
> server, and then add it in the Webmin Servers Index module on the master
> server, with the admin or root username and password specified. Then when
> creating a master zone, you'll have the option to add it as slave to the slave
> server as well. There is even a Module Config page option to set the default
> server for this option, and a button on the main page to apply changes on
> the slave server as well.
>
> - Jamie
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> -
> Forwarded by the Webmin development list at web...@we...
> To remove yourself from this list, go to
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-devel
>
|
|
From: Luke W. <lu...@ad...> - 2003-10-01 07:44:15
|
Wow Jamie thankyou....two other questions
a) is this a good list for virtualmin questions too? :)
b) With setting up virtualmin users etc, is it possible to auto-update the
backup MX server (so when the pri MX goes down the users still get their mail
on the backup)
Thanks again :)
Luke
-----------
Luke Worthy <lu...@ad...> wrote ..
> I have a question regarding changing some of the DNS module in webmin.
>
> when you create a new master zone, and leave the option "Records file"
> as
> automatic, it makes a file called "zonename.hosts" in the default directory
> specified in the named.conf. I have been asked to change this to the naming
> convention we use here in our office "pri.zonename".
>
> I have found it to be quite difficult as I am not much of a perl programmer,
> but have hacked a few things together in the past.
>
> Now I found what I am guessing is the line in question in create_master.cgi,
> so I changed it from:
>
> $in{'file'} = $base."/$in{'zone'}.hosts";
>
> to:
>
> $in{'file'} = $base."/pri.$in{'zone'}";
>
> and:
> $in{'file'} = $base."/pri.'$in{'zone'}'";
>
> and have NFI - it still uses the filename "zonename.hosts" - I would have
> at
> least expected an error......
There is actually way to do this without needing to make any code changes
at all :-) On the main page of the BIND module, click on Module Config and
change the 'Format for the name of forward zone files' to 'pri.ZONE'.
> Also I have been asked to setup our DNS so that when someone enters in
> the
> master information on one server, it automatically creates the entries
> on the
> backup server, without having to do any more "clicking". Any ideas about
> how
> to do this?
>
> At the moment I have to go into the backup server and change the named.conf
> file to add in the requested entry :)
This is actually possible as well.. You need to install webmin on the slave
server, and then add it in the Webmin Servers Index module on the master
server, with the admin or root username and password specified. Then when
creating a master zone, you'll have the option to add it as slave to the slave
server as well. There is even a Module Config page option to set the default
server for this option, and a button on the main page to apply changes on
the slave server as well.
- Jamie
|
31 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
