[SOLVED] 2.1 -> 2.1.2: Custom Repository not working
-
Other than that, you are wasting your time with creating your own packages. Instead, you should create your own project.
I think this is a bit more than people with custom repositories need… For myself it would be enough, if I could add PBI's manual in the GUI without using any repository. But that is is OT.
I will have a look at the source and try to get some more information...
-
Ok… This problem is just one of "please don't do this in the same main version of the product"... :o
On 2.1:
You need the repo to have a server root with 2 subdirectories and nothing else: "/pfSense" and "/packages" (both in the root of repo)http://your-repo.domain.tld/pfSense http://your-repo.domain.tld/packagesOn 2.1.2 (don't know for 2.1.1):
You need the "/pfSense" content be the root and a subdirectory "/packages".http://your-repo.domain.tld/ http://your-repo.domain.tld/packagesSmall change, but big impact. Optionally you can use https of course…
Would be nice to see this one in the documentation. -
On 2.1.2 (don't know for 2.1.1):
You need the "/pfSense" content be the root and a subdirectory "/packages".http://your-repo.domain.tld/ http://your-repo.domain.tld/packagesHi Hobby-Student
I did that but my two pfSense updated to 2.1.2 still said "Unable to communicate with X.X.X.X. Please verify DNS and…" I changed $path_to_files in xmlrpc.php and correct '../packages/' but not work. ¿Any ideas?
-
…I changed $path_to_files in xmlrpc.php and correct '../packages/' but not work. ¿Any ideas?
xmlrpc.php, line 45:
$path_to_files = './xmlrpc/';xmlrpc.php, line 124:
$path_to_files = './packages/';This should do the trick.
-
This should do the trick.
Yes, I did the "./packages/" change and the other no needed because always work with "./xmlrpc/" and have communication problem yet. No more changes needed in other files?
-
Yes, I did the "./packages/" change and the other no needed because always work with "./xmlrpc/" and have communication problem yet. No more changes needed in other files?
Was the repo working on 2.1?
Have you set right permissions on your webserver?
.htaccess as mentioned in the official wiki?
is test.php and xmlrpc_tester.php working? (just open in browser and see if it's reporting something)sure, that the "old" folder "pfSense" is now the root of your server?
http://repo.domain.tld/xmlrpc.php http://repo.domain.tld/xmlrpc/ http://repo.domain.tld/packages/ (and so on) -
Oh, yeah the base URL also changed when we moved from www.pfsense.com to packages.pfsense.org, 2.1.1 and later do not look in /pfSense/ by default for packages, rather in the root.
-
@cmb:
Oh, yeah the base URL also changed when we moved from www.pfsense.com to packages.pfsense.org, 2.1.1 and later do not look in /pfSense/ by default for packages, rather in the root.
Could this info please be added to the wiki?
-
My advice is to ignore doktornotor. He claims to be trained as a lawyer, but seemingly the only benefit he gained from law school was learning to act poorly in public.
The fact that he doesn't practice what he learned should give anyone pause.
As cmb related, we moved the repositories to their own server. Anyone running an official build likely followed without noticing.
We never signed up to supporting custom repos, etc.
-
@gonzopancho:
My advice is to ignore doktornotor. … We never signed up to supporting custom repos, etc.
Where's the -tools repo? Will you finally either publish that or stop misadvertising this as open-source? Perhaps FTC might be interested as well. ::)
-
As I've explained elsewhere, I don't respond to doktornotor or other abusive asshole like him (her? it?)
-
Where's the -tools repo?
-
doktornotor; we are looking forward to hear about your own opensource work (like pfsense) as soon as possible, untill then please at least be kind enough to shut up and respect theese nice people, they are not obligated to do anything you or anyone required
-
they are not obligated to do anything you or anyone required
Actually, they are as long as they advertise this as open source. They of course are free to stop this deceptive advertising.
P.S. As for "your own" - this is a m0n0wall fork based on FreeBSD. Not something written from scratch by ESF. And those "nice people" get as much respect as they deserve. In case of certain Jim T. who happens to own the Netgate/ESF thing, the respect has currently dropped below freezing point. ::)
-
Unlike doktornotor, Jim Thompson doesn't hide behind a pseudonym.
-
You should stick with washing the bottles, and keep WAY away from any customer/public relations. Frankly, your today's posts on this forum could be used as classic learning materials in a "How NOT to EVER deal with OSS community" course. ::)
-
doktornotor seems frustrated, and views himself as "the community".
"Desperado Effect"in action?
-
Perhaps some other admins should investigate whether Jim T's account has been hacked? If not, I feel sincerely sorry for all those the ESF employees who have been actually helpful and extremely professional, compared to this pathetic trademark "boss".
-
Controlled or not controlled?
The same die shows two faces.
Not controlled or controlled,
Both are a grievous error. -
they are not obligated to do anything you or anyone required
Actually, they are as long as they advertise this as open source. They of course are free to stop this deceptive advertising.
P.S. As for "your own" - this is a m0n0wall fork based on FreeBSD. Not something written from scratch by ESF. And those "nice people" get as much respect as they deserve. In case of certain Jim T. who happens to own the Netgate/ESF thing, the respect has currently dropped below freezing point. ::)
feel free to develop your own project on monowall, freebsd or any platform you like, if you don't like pfsense or the behaviours of the developers, no one is stopping you, there are a bunch of open source projects out there, leave us and go for them