Anyone heard from af123

prpr

Well-Known Member
I would be prepared to re-package ir 1.17 as ir 1.21 and place it in the standard repository but that would replace 1.18 and 1.19 for all beta users that allow auto upgrade
An attempt to fix a problem in the beta repository should not be made by doing a pointless upload in the main one. I have auto-update enabled on the main repository and not on the beta one. Doing as you suggest would effectively back-level my working system (1.19) to one which works less well (1.17).
It would make a bigger mess than the small one which currently exists, so kindly don't.
 

Ezra Pound

Well-Known Member
An attempt to fix a problem in the beta repository should not be made by doing a pointless upload in the main one. I have auto-update enabled on the main repository and not on the beta one. Doing as you suggest would effectively back-level my working system (1.19) to one which works less well (1.17).
It would make a bigger mess than the small one which currently exists, so kindly don't.
Which is why I have not done it, did you not see the text after the but?, but that would replace 1.18 and 1.19 for all beta users that allow auto upgrade I was replying toMymsMan in post #11
 

Black Hole

May contain traces of nut
The details of how to load ir 1.19 was detailed by /df 10 days earlier, Click HERE
What are you implying? My post was an alert, and detailed how why and when to use that information, and /df was properly credited. As such, it was not a straight crib.

An attempt to fix a problem in the beta repository should not be made by doing a pointless upload in the main one.
Why would it be pointless? Do you believe 1.19 isn't stable? At least two of us are using it (counting you and me).
 
OP
MymsMan

MymsMan

Ad detector
Which is why I have not done it, did you not see the text after the but?, but that would replace 1.18 and 1.19 for all beta users that allow auto upgrade I was replying toMymsMan in post #11
Apologies for causing confusion I thought when writing that post that 1.18 was the non-beta version
As @Ezra Pound and @prpr my suggestion is flawed and we come back to the fundamental question.

How do we proceed with maintaining and updating this site in the, hopefully temporary, absence of @af123?

ir is just one, fairly simple, example of the problems we have going forward

@prpr, @/df and I have all submitted pull requests to make changes to the webif but without having someone to approve the changes, merge them into the master, build the package, update the beta repository and eventually move to main repository we are unable to make any significant improvements.
 

prpr

Well-Known Member
Why would it be pointless?
I believe the proposal was to create 1.21 as an otherwise identical copy of 1.17, which is pointless for all non-beta users.
For beta users, who ought to be more competent in solving problems, there are workarounds. And for what it's worth, I haven't run fix-flash-packages in years anyway, because I have the auto-crash-disable-package-thingy turned off. I would recommend everybody does, unless they are actively developing and testing stuff that may cause such crashes, and there aren't many of those around, and they know better anyway. It causes more problems that it solves, as we have found out.
Do you believe 1.19 isn't stable?
No I don't. I'm perfectly happy with it. If I wasn't, then I'd be back on the non-beta 1.17 version. But as someone else said, it's not our decision.
 

prpr

Well-Known Member
How do we proceed with maintaining and updating this site in the, hopefully temporary, absence of @af123?

ir is just one, fairly simple, example of the problems we have going forward

@prpr, @/df and I have all submitted pull requests to make changes to the webif but without having someone to approve the changes, merge them into the master, build the package, update the beta repository and eventually move to main repository we are unable to make any significant improvements.
I don't think 'we' can. All you can do is fork the repository to somewhere else and then get your machines to point to it.
As I said in the ir thread, this is what I have effectively done (on my LAN) as I'm now running my own local/personal repository and have pointed all my machines at it as an extra source of packages.
I could further refine it to make it all repositories (main, beta, local) and then just control where the first two resolve to (either to hpkg.tv or to my local VM) using a DNS entry on the router as the switch.
 
OP
MymsMan

MymsMan

Ad detector
There was some discussion about removing the "Some packages may have been disabled" message if the flag has been set or just removing the disablement altogether

But without the ability to update the packages at present that is not possible
 

Black Hole

May contain traces of nut
You have a well-developed knack of taking specific outlying examples to "prove" a general criticism. Context, as I have said before, is everything.
 

/df

Active Member
Additionally, some new beta packages posted as attachments aren't easy to transfer to the target for installation.
Wiki may be the thing that we (ie @EP) can control.
Might it be possible to create a "temporary" beta download page in the Wiki, similar to that for the firmwares?
 
OP
MymsMan

MymsMan

Ad detector
Additionally, some new beta packages posted as attachments aren't easy to transfer to the target for installation.

Might it be possible to create a "temporary" beta download page in the Wiki, similar to that for the firmwares?
Creating the wiki page is no problem, it is just a page of file link to other pages where the downloadable file live - they are not uploaded to the wiki
The real problem is finding who other than @af123 can authorise you to upload to hpkg.tv or hummy.tv, alternatively we need to find another site that we can upload to & download from.
 

Ezra Pound

Well-Known Member
Additionally, some new beta packages posted as attachments aren't easy to transfer to the target for installation.

Might it be possible to create a "temporary" beta download page in the Wiki, similar to that for the firmwares?
The Wiki only contains links to files, they are not held on the Wiki, it is only possible to upload image files maximum size 2MB
 
OP
MymsMan

MymsMan

Ad detector
Do we know for certain that the recent forum changes were made by @af123 himself or could they have made by the hosting provider updating a set of shared libraries?

It seems strange and out character for @af123 who has always been such an active presence on these forums to be making unannounced and seemingly unneeded changes to the forum infrastructure while ignoring simpler problems like replacing the beta ir package and direct questions.

@af123 's mysterious disappearance of four months far exceeds that of Agatha Christie !
 

/df

Active Member
Do we know for certain that the recent forum changes were made by @af123 himself or could they have made by the hosting provider updating a set of shared libraries?
It's said to be a security update so it might have been forced
The Wiki only contains links to files, they are not held on the Wiki, it is only possible to upload image files maximum size 2MB
I suppose the Google Docs site where the firmwares are linked is AF's?

Once upon a time people used to distribute programs as text files, text-encoded binary wrapped in a self-extracting shell script.

Is it possible to include plain text files in the Wiki, like the attached (I added .txt to make it upload)?
 

Attachments

  • zeroconf_2.0-1_mipsel.opk.shar.txt
    30.9 KB · Views: 2
OP
MymsMan

MymsMan

Ad detector
I suppose the Google Docs site where the firmwares are linked is AF's?
I expect so, I wonder why, I had assumed they were stored on hpkg.tv and hadn't looked at where the actual download was coming from.

I had done a bit of poking around and it seems that wget from google drive is possible but not straightforward, the complexity is presumably what rpc/cfwget.html sorts out
 
Top