Re: [dev] A simpler static file server than quark

2020-01-26 Thread Hiltjo Posthuma
On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 08:59:55AM +0100, Richard Ulmer wrote: > Hi Hiltjo, > > Hiltjo Posthuma wrote: > > > I have used quark for this, but found it annoying, that I have to > > > provide a host and port and run it as root (the noroot patch doesn't > > > always work either, because the use of fo

Re: [dev] A simpler static file server than quark

2020-01-26 Thread Laslo Hunhold
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 08:59:55 +0100 "Richard Ulmer" wrote: Dear Richard, > This is exactly what the noroot patch does: Removing chroot(2), > setgid(2), setuid(2) and setgroups(2). I didn't make up the behaviour > I described. I'm unable to reproduce the error right now, but it > occurs occasional

Re: [dev] A simpler static file server than quark

2020-01-26 Thread Richard Ulmer
Hi Hiltjo, Hiltjo Posthuma wrote: > > I have used quark for this, but found it annoying, that I have to > > provide a host and port and run it as root (the noroot patch doesn't > > always work either, because the use of fork(2) is restricted). It seems > > like others have similar complaints abou

Re: [dev] A simpler static file server than quark

2020-01-25 Thread Hiltjo Posthuma
On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 08:59:11PM +0100, Richard Ulmer wrote: > Hi, > sometimes it's handy to have an easy to use file server at hand, to > share a file with a friend, colleague or smartphone, provide a dummy > server when developing an API or quickly view a website that requires > AJAX locally [1

[dev] A simpler static file server than quark

2020-01-25 Thread Richard Ulmer
Hi, sometimes it's handy to have an easy to use file server at hand, to share a file with a friend, colleague or smartphone, provide a dummy server when developing an API or quickly view a website that requires AJAX locally [1]. I have used quark for this, but found it annoying, that I have to pro