Hi,
I think this is a good idea. Though, it isn't the 'break-up' I imagined
when I first started reading your message. I just assumed the LuCI webif
was minimal with the option of adding tabs -- much like the original
webif.
I suppose the questions I still have about the LuCI webif project are:
It seems to work well using the crontab command from within your init
script - assuming your cron is associated with a service.
in start():
(crontab -l 2>/dev/null | grep -v $0
echo "*/10 * * * * $0 checksomething"
) | crontab - 2>/dev/null
in stop():
crontab -l 2>/dev/nu
dump pls
>
>
>
> wlanmac wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have a problem with a program crashing an ARM kernel - and crashing it
> > hard. The program uses the Tun/Tap driver, but I'm not certain that is
> > the issue. I haven't seen this behavior on any
> Sorry, but in some respects I look at all these web interfaces and just
> cringe; the webif was never meant to be a lifelong ambition, it should
> only be a very thin layer between uci and the browser. All of the schema
> and validation, as well as the i18n should actually be handled on the
> uci
> I thought Gargoyle was interesting, although my money is on serving the
> config files as xml, using xslt to do the presentation layer parsing the
> xml-ified config files to html+css and then using ajax calls to pass
> back the data. As a result, there would be a single url per /etc/config
> fi
> It's just a separate set of packages: not more, not less.
>
Ok, cool.
> But if you are using the Gargoyle approach - that is not bad but simply a
> different approach - you have to mess up with Shell and learn JavaScript or
> in your case *yourFrontendLanguage*.
>
True. But, I'd argue tha
Hi all,
I have a problem with a program crashing an ARM kernel - and crashing it
hard. The program uses the Tun/Tap driver, but I'm not certain that is
the issue. I haven't seen this behavior on any other architecture -
anyone know of known problems with tun/tap or other issues with ARM? I
tried t
Hi,
Sounds good, but perhaps not for everyone. This will be integrated into
the main firmware or will it always be a package? I'm not concerned
about it being installed per default in the OpenWrt-built firmware, but
will it be difficult to remove overall or will the LuCI code be mixed up
with non-
