I want to use web management on freescale board,
what is the best way to do that?
I try to use luci but I don’t use Openwrt so it became difficult.
Well, what's your requirement?
If you want a web-based configuration interface, that already has an available recipe, I think webmin is the only one I found. I've used that one in a couple of projects.
Otherwise, it shouldn't be any problem to add a recipe for whatever web-based configuration system you prefer. (There's a few I'd prefer, but those tend to be GPLv3, which I couldn't use in those projects).
Building luci, isn't that hard either.
Related
I'm taking on the challenge of trying to test and develop with ERPNext. I'm new to ERPNext, Docker, Compose, Git, etc. I'm going to need to learn these from scratch.
What is the general most efficient way to install ERPNext (for testing purposes for now) on either a Mac or Windows computer?
Below are my criteria:
I need to be able to create backups and transfer them and implement
them to a different computer if necessary.
I'm also attempting to do this in as budget-friendly way as
possible. I'm probably not going to be spending money on hosting or
anything of the sort (completely free is the goal).
ERPNext needs to be easily upgradeable/downgradeable to different versions
The implementation of ERPNext will eventually need custom code/integrations
I've read that there are different methods of using ERPNext, depending on the OS, including VirtualBox, and Windows Subsystem for Linux. I'm looking for the fastest, least resource-hungry, and most versatile solution
I will check out the official ERPNext documentation, but I would also like to know other people's personal experiences and methods.
This is a big task to take on, so I'm looking for some advice before delving into this.
You can use frappe_docker setup to quickly get the environment up and running.
https://github.com/frappe/frappe_docker
If you want least resource hungry option, you can setup a site using bench.
https://github.com/frappe/bench
I am using for an alternative to OpenGrok. I can't configure it properly. What I want is to browse to the code, like I would be in Visual Studio. I'd like to have a menu with a minimum option of Go To Definition, find references etc. How can that be achieved ?
I suggest to have a look at the Woboq Code Browser.
It works like a compile step and dynamically analyzes the code and how symbols are linked to each other.
Did you have problems configuring it on Windows?
OpenGrok works best through a web-server. You might find it easier to rent some cheap VPS box, and configure OpenGrok remotely on such server (instead of trying to configure it locally on a Windows box), and then use your web-browser to access the remotely-running OpenGrok instance through the web-interface.
I've once tried using OpenGrok locally on a Windows machine, and even though it worked, I was not happy that the non-web version didn't have any syntax highlighting, and was overall just way too awkward to be of any real use.
There's Text-Sherlock. And the github project. It can use either Whoosh or Xapian as its backend.
I would recommend Codatlas. It has features such as jump-to-definition and cross-reference and poly-glot support such as C/C++, Java, Python, Scala etc.
Our group uses Visual Sourcesafe as a file repository for all of our "content" (HTML, CSS, Javascript, JSP). None of it requires building or compilation but we would like to automate the copying of it to a Unix dev server upon check-in.
I have used Cruisecontrol.NET in the past for CI at other companies but it was for .NET. What would be the easiest way to achieve our current requirements? Would using CruiseControl.NET be overkill or even a good idea? Thanks in advance.
-Sean
This sounds like overkill for a CI tool.
Visual SourceSafe and other version control systems should have hooks allowing you to automate a simple file copy operation.
From http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa302175.aspx
Use events, such as OnBeforeCheckout
or OnAfterCheckIn to automate your
process.
Whether this makes sense for you depends on a couple of factors. If you are talking about a large, geographically team with only change based deployment then yes, those are valid concerns. If you only have a few local developers and you deploy the world on each copy operation, then no, I don't think you'd need a CI tool.
This is not to say other reasons may influence you to use a CI tool, testing for instance. Your problem might also be solved by running a polling script on the Unix box to sync the source control with the dev server. I guess the main point is, if you are deploying all non-compiled software, why do you have a separate source control and dev server? You're deployment can be done by a source control tool. If it is only for backup, there are plenty of existing solutions for that problem.
Sean,
Our AnthillPro customers do this kind of thing pretty frequently (and we even do it internally when new content is committed for our website). It's a really good idea, totally appropriate for a CI tool, and you can get quality feedback if you wire in some automated functional / regression tests.
Eric
You could try using Hudson http://hudson-ci.org/
It is easy to configure, is completely GUI (unless you want to go into the details), and has a plugin for Visual Sourcecafe http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/HUDSON/Visual+SourceSafe+Plugin
While CI would probably be overkill for what you are trying to do, since Hudson is all GUI and easy to use, you would not spend a lot of time just trying to configure it.
Hudson also has plugins for copying stuff over to other systems, and so it would be easy to deploy your content to another system.
If you are worried about the process, get in touch with a hosted CI provider, such as MikeCI, a quick message on their support board will get you the answer. I don't see why triggering a "build" can't be replaced with copy and paste!
Is there any API or tool that can automate software updating? It should take care of checking for updates from a URL for a provided list of files and downloading and replacing the ones that need updating. It would also be nice if it contained an authentication module so that only authorized parties could access the updates. It should be language-agnostic - takes a list of files without extra knowledge except their versions and replaces them with newly downloaded copies if on the site there are newer versions.
I'm specifically interested in something for the Windows platform, that would run on Win Xp to Win 7.
This makes me think about apt-get ...
take a look here, as well: Is there an auto-update framework for C++/Win32/MFC (like Sparkle)?
I did see some articles a while back about embedding subversion into your application to manage version control.
Edit:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.developer.html
Subversion has a modular design: it's implemented as a collection of libraries written in C. Each library has a well-defined purpose and application programming interface (API), and that interface is available not only for Subversion itself to use, but for any software that wishes to embed or otherwise programmatically control Subversion. Additionally, Subversion's API is available not only to other C programs, but also to programs written in higher-level languages such as Python, Perl, Java, and Ruby."
Just saw UpdateNode launching a pretty cool update and messaging system. It seems to be cross platform and free for Open Source.
UPDATE, did some further analysis on that, posted at: https://stackoverflow.com/a/22528011/3257300
For windows, I'd use Google Update, also known as omaha.
Since you didn't tag this question as windows, I'd also mention a UpdateEngine for Mac.
And (best of all) apt, which is available for free on all Debian-based Linux and BSD distributions, like Ubuntu
There is open source project WIPT inspired by APT of Debian Linux.
Head over to Launchpad and use a PPA: it is a Debian/Ubuntu repository management platform. Of course this is not really platform independent but it is language wise :-)
You should take a look at ClickThrough, I don't know much about it but it sounds similar to what you're looking for. As for authorization, I would imagine this to be handled by your webserver based on the URL.
InstallShield has an offering. Never used it but researched it a few years back but we decided on a roll your own solution.
InstallShield Update Manager
InstallShield Update Service
You didn't state what platform you needed this for. The easiest way I can think of doing this is with subversion using rsync.
The concept is to write a post-commit hook for subversion. This script would update a "working folder" on the repository machine and then use rsync to update the differences to another machine.
Data protection and authentication would be set up using rsync over ssh.
If this is for windows, you could try doing the same with cygwin installs on the two machines.
Good luck.
If you use .NET, I'm a happy customer of AppLife Update
CRONw is a scheduled execution service for Windows. (Sorry, I can't link it, I'm apparently limited to 1 as a new user. It's hosted on Sourceforge.)
Powershell is a Windows scripting language (Microsoft-official) that allows you to do most system administration operations you could conceivably want to do. It is very easy to pick up even if you haven't worked with it before.
I would say your best bet is to write a simple update script in Powershell and, optionally, set it up as a crontask so you don't have to manually execute it.
IIRC, Powershell is an optional install on XP, and CRONw requires you be running a 32-bit system. You didn't say, so I'd guess you're doing 32-bit, but the alternative bears mentioning.
And in all this, I'm assuming that the URLs you're describing are designed for this purpose - if they're not and you don't own them, it will rapidly become more suffering than you're willing to bear. (Making a computer navigate a human-readable website usually does.)
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I was pretty surprised to find out that raw sources of my little open source project are getting downloaded more often than the compiled and ready to use library (jar file in this case, platform independent). I wonder what are the reasons behind that? Lack of trust? Curiosity? Compiling with custom settings? Attaching sources for debugging?
Personally I usually don't bother downloading and looking at sources unless something is not working or I don't understand how it works.
I often download sources just to see how other people have implemented certain things. Reading (and understanding) other peoples source code is a good way of becoming a better programmer yourself.
As for the relatively high number of downloads, perhaps your library is included in other projects like a Linux distributions? Such projects usually download and build from source themselves so that they can properly package it.
The first reason would be for customizing applications.
Also its not a good practice to download some code and use it straight away without looking at how the code works. There will be something for you to learn from the code.
Also you might not need the whole functionality of the project. If the project is too big and you need to use only some functionality in it it would be a great idea to trim the project to your needs and then use it.
For every piece of software of long term interest for my company, I look at the sources to assess the quality. The rationale behind it is that badly written software is usually also bad to use and maintain and thus a business risk in the long term.
Even with most commercial software like ERP systems it is no problem to get a look at the source. Only for COTS (say MS Office) it is hard to get the source.
I also check source for every hiring decision.
An other reason why you see so many source downloads might be automated build systems like FreeBSD Ports which download and compile automatically.
I look at the source just to learn how the program works.
As silly as it might seems, the open source software ( such as open source CRMs) is notorious for the lack of documentation. The only way to find out how it works is to experiment with it. When even experiment fails, it's the time to fire up your IDE and read the source!!
Maybe the answer will be disappointing, but the relatively high number of source downloads could mean that the application is packaged in a port-based distribution like Gentoo, FreeBSD or MacPorts where every package is downloaded and compiled on a local machine during installation.
If it's a framework, I always download sources. I use them for debugging and to see how they've implemented certain things. If it's a standalone application, I generally don't look at the source unless there is a problem or the application does something unique.
As you say your binary is a jar, it sounds like it is a Java-library (rather than an application). Developers often use source: to include it in the IDE to debug in the library and lookup certain functions. Also many developers include the sources in their build-process to compile also the dependencies. That may be an explanation.
The number one reason is compiler settings. You can't imagine the amount of pain caused by linking a static library compiled with some incompatible settings. Compiling on your own with checked settings simplifies life greatly. Plus when you decide to change the compiler for the better one you don't need to have the old static library - it will be compiled by the new compiler two.
The number two reason could be that people want to see how some things work inside. For example, they want the same or similar functionality in their commercial closed-source project and can't just borrow code because of the viral license. However they can see how it works and get inspired - that't why they download the source and read.
I have downloaded libraries and compiled them my self but I have not actually looked at the code. When I use a library it is good to know that I can make changes and have the source on hand. I have on occasion taken just a file or two if it is a massive library and I only need a single functionality from a large library.
Some reasons could be:
Distrust of binary downloads due to trojans, etc
Taking a look at how you've implemented something
Checking out the quality of your code :)
Since this is a library, the need for comprehensive documentation is much higher than for a standalone app. I often find myself looking up the code of a library to figure out certain things sometimes left out of the docs, e.g. time/space complexity of certain functions.
We use some open source packages for our commercial application. I always download and build from source.
If our hosting platform changes in
the future, it might change to
something that does not have a
precompiled binary. I want to be
able to use the same package/version
on the new platform.
If the package goes dormant or
becomes unsupported, I want to be
able to apply a change or fix if
absolutely necessary.
If something is going wrong on the
server (memory leak, CPU spike,
etc.), I want to be able to add
logging or instrumentation code to
identify or eliminate the package as
the source of the problem.
I can of course only answer for myself, but it is not seldom that i download the binaries (assuming I trust the project which is usually the case), and the when I debug I download the sources. But I have a tendency to delete the sources when I think I'm done with them and since you are never really done I might have to redownload the sources later and thus causing the source downloads to be higher.