ExtFile: PUT method fails for uploads via FTP
Hello, I just want to inform the public that there is a problem with the ExtFile product. It is described in detail at: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=219871 and was fixed by Adam Blomberg <adam@euroling.se> (Thanks Adam!). There are fixed packages in Debian incoming. Kind regards Andreas.
Andreas, I know I have fixed a PUT related bug in my updated version of ExtFile. Could you please have a look whether you problem is still there in the Extfile version you can find at <http://www.zope.org/Members/shh/ExtFile> I am regrettably too short on time to make a proper release atm, but I have received some nice patches (Thanks, Zagy) already and would of course integrate Adam's fixes as well. Stefan --On Dienstag, 11. November 2003 10:07 +0100 Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de> wrote:
Hello,
I just want to inform the public that there is a problem with the ExtFile product. It is described in detail at:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=219871
and was fixed by Adam Blomberg <adam@euroling.se> (Thanks Adam!). There are fixed packages in Debian incoming.
Kind regards
Andreas.
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
-- The time has come to start talking about whether the emperor is as well dressed as we are supposed to think he is. /Pete McBreen/
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Stefan H. Holek wrote:
I know I have fixed a PUT related bug in my updated version of ExtFile. Could you please have a look whether you problem is still there in the Extfile version you can find at
<http://www.zope.org/Members/shh/ExtFile> This URL contains great news that development of ExtFile is obviousely not dead! Thanks for caring about this product.
I am regrettably too short on time to make a proper release atm, but I have received some nice patches (Thanks, Zagy) already and would of course integrate Adam's fixes as well. Adam could you please test this in your environment, because it costs you the smallest amount of time I guess. If somebody ensures me that this Beta version works in production environment I would ignore the fact that there is a massive lack of documentation updates and would package this version for Debian.
Any opinions? Kind regards Andreas.
On Tuesday, Nov 11, 2003, at 11:53 Europe/Stockholm, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Stefan H. Holek wrote:
I know I have fixed a PUT related bug in my updated version of ExtFile. Could you please have a look whether you problem is still there in the Extfile version you can find at
<http://www.zope.org/Members/shh/ExtFile> This URL contains great news that development of ExtFile is obviousely not dead! Thanks for caring about this product.
I am regrettably too short on time to make a proper release atm, but I have received some nice patches (Thanks, Zagy) already and would of course integrate Adam's fixes as well. Adam could you please test this in your environment, because it costs you the smallest amount of time I guess. If somebody ensures me that this Beta version works in production environment I would ignore the fact that there is a massive lack of documentation updates and would package this version for Debian.
I think 1.2.0b2 contains a better fix for the PUT problem than my suggested solution, since the former uses the path from the request. (Although it isn't immediately obvious to me why ExtFile.py:485 sets the path to REQUEST.steps[:-2], which doesn't seem consistent with the case when absolute_url is used, ExtFile.py:649.) I have tested most cases I can think of using the default configuration, and everything seems to work fine (both via the ZMI and via FTP). I haven't tested the new functionality offered in this version however. The only thing that I see as a possible issue when upgrading from a previous version of ExtFile is the new default location of the repository (static/reposit/ instead of var/reposit/). While the new behaviour is clearly stated on the download page and easily changed in Config.py, perhaps it could be set to the old default when upgrading ExtFile. // Adam
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Adam Blomberg wrote:
case when absolute_url is used, ExtFile.py:649.) I have tested most cases I can think of using the default configuration, and everything seems to work fine (both via the ZMI and via FTP). I haven't tested the new functionality offered in this version however. This sounds promissing.
The only thing that I see as a possible issue when upgrading from a previous version of ExtFile is the new default location of the repository (static/reposit/ instead of var/reposit/). While the new behaviour is clearly stated on the download page and easily changed in Config.py, perhaps it could be set to the old default when upgrading ExtFile. Thanks for the hint. This is a clear issue which has to be adressed for upgrading. A quick thight brings a symlink into mind or alternatively copy old data to the new location in a postinst script. But I would like to hear the rationale behind this move.
Kind regards Andreas.
participants (3)
-
Adam Blomberg -
Andreas Tille -
Stefan H. Holek