Hi Bernhard,
I am not really sure in what way this is related to this Core Update. I guess it is not.
On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 15:55 +0200, Bernhard Bitsch wrote:
Hi,
a thread in the forum showed up a little issue in our tests.
Which one?
Some parts, don't know how many, just have a status of "untouched for a long time".
Indeed, we won't touch the web user interface in order to clean up the code if we do not need to. It has been a nightmare from the very beginning since we forked the project. We never invested much into cleaning up the code because there will be a complete rewrite of the entire thing.
That does not mean that we don't fix bugs though.
This is mainly true for Perl scripts in the WUI.
Yes. Some other things have been replaced over time. The most recent example is the setddns.pl script that was replaced by ddns.
I would be a big effort to check all this files. But some issues will come in sight, if at least during test period these files contain the lines
use strict; use warnings; use CGI::Carp 'fatalsToBrowser';
Perl does tolerate so much dirty coding. In such cases it isn't sure whether the intentions of the programmer meet the interpretation of the interpreter. These three lines force a check and log possible errors to the WUI.
I am not really sure what you are saying here. If you want to clean up the code that would be helpful. Eventually we will have to update our version of perl and we know that huge chunks of the web user interface code are incompatible to that. I have never done any actual testing if it works but we have many features in the code that have been removed. There is for example the smart match operator.
I fear, without these statements a couple of faulty test cases are reported as error-free.
Of course we cannot ship code that will show error messages to the user. Those changes should be also very small so that they can be easily reviewed and should not cause too much damage. It is just essential to keep the development process tidy to not create an even bigger mess.
New functionality or changed functionality should be done in separate patches of course.
-Michael
Bernhard
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Juni 2015 um 11:46 Uhr Von: "Michael Tremer" michael.tremer@ipfire.org An: "Jan Lentfer" Jan.Lentfer@web.de Cc: "development@lists.ipfire.org" development@lists.ipfire.org Betreff: Re: IPFire 2.17 - Core Update 91 release schedule
Hello,
just follow this guide:
http://wiki.ipfire.org/en/configuration/ipfire/pakfire/testing
-Michael
On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 11:44 +0200, Jan Lentfer wrote:
Hi, could you shortly describe (possibly once more) how can follow the testing branch instead of the stable branch? TIA Jan
Von meinem iPad gesendet
Am 11.06.2015 um 10:51 schrieb Michael Tremer michael.tremer@ipfire.org:
Hello,
I just wanted to update you quickly about the upcoming Core Update 91 release plan.
There will be a new OpenSSL release at some time today (Thursday) which fixes several security vulnerabilities in this library. We do not know much about the severity of those vulnerabilities, yet, but we will release a new Core Update any ways.
The changes that have been pushed into the next branch will be released as well with an exception of Python. The Python package won't build on some systems and due to lack of time to debug this properly the Python update has been postponed.
As soon as the OpenSSL update is released we will start the build. We expect this to be late at night (as it has been in the past) and therefore the will be a build available Friday morning/noon European time. The ARM build will take much longer to complete though.
We will push that build to the testing tree so that as many people can help testing as possibly can.
If everything goes well we intend to release the final update 24 hours after that - which will be Saturday some time after mid day.
Best, -Michael
P.S. I was asked to send a short release plan for Core Updates on this list because it is not so easy to find out what the current status is sometimes. I would like your feedback about if this is a good idea and if this is helping. I am hoping that it is helping us to engage more testers into the testing procedure of new Core Updates and let you plan some time for doing that.