Re: [lm-sensors] Revision of sensors-detect

[Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2264 bytes --]

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 01:16:20PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Axel,
> 
> We often ask our users to test the latest version of sensors-detect.
> They typically get it from SVN through the trac interface:
>   http://www.lm-sensors.org/browser/lm-sensors/trunk/prog/detect/sensors-detect?format=txt
> Unfortunately, trac doesn't honor keyword substitutions, so when the
> user reports the output, we get:
> 
> # sensors-detect revision $Revision$
> 
> Not very useful. The bug (or at least missing feature) has already been
> reported upstream 5 years ago, and I've added a comment there yesterday:
>   http://trac.edgewall.org/ticket/717#comment:10
> I don't expect this ticket to get fixed soon.
> 
> An alternative is to use the SVN web interface:
>   http://www.lm-sensors.org/svn/lm-sensors/trunk/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> Unfortunately there is no keyword substitution there either. Does
> anyone know if there is a way to enable it?

I don't know, but that would be the best solution. Anyone with more
svn (web) experience under the belt?

> If not, it would be nice to have a workaround. I have one, which is a
> simple CGI script which fetches the file using the svn command line
> client and prints its contents:
> 
> #!/bin/sh
> echo "Content-type: text/plain"
> echo
> svn cat http://www.lm-sensors.org/svn/lm-sensors/trunk/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> 
> I've tested it locally and it works fine for me. I could run it on my
> home server, however I think it is better for the users if they get the
> script from lm-sensors.org. They really have no reason to trust my
> personal server (which may also disappear someday.)
> 
> Axel, is there a chance we could run this CGI script on lm-sensors.org
> and point users to it when we want them to test the latest version of
> sensors-detect?

I think I'd rather prefer a static solution, e.g. create a daily
checkout w/ keyword substitution. Could be part of the snapshot
creation script.

CGIs are nasty in the sense that for security one may turn it off on a whitelist
basis (actually nothing uses CGI currenlty) and a simply CGI script
could be forgotten in a server update/hardening messing up the
download.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 153 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors