Eggdev: Still looking for eggdrop developer?
darko at onvol.net
Tue May 31 10:18:33 CST 2005
My mail address must be on your filter list since there has been a
dozen unanswered and critical mails in the last year. I am not going to
yet again repeat myself nor my questions and concerns about where the
code should go from here, but I expect you to finish the parts you
disagreed over and changed, so we can continue contributing healthy code
in healthy manner. Botnet module should, in my opinnion, be worked on
*only* after irc/server stuff has been resolved - which is far from
being the case. On the other hand, Will used the word 'protocol', not
the actual module code, and I liked that. It indeed is the right road to
take - propose a solution, let others comment on it and finaly implement
it in the way that little or no further changes are needed untill some
new aspect shows up. Really new aspect, not overlooked or forgotten one.
Fixing bugs is one thing and is a part of development, but changing
the design every so often is unacceptable. Unfortunantly, in case of 1.9
i seem to recognize the latter. If you are busy, tired, or simply not in
the mood for coding, let us know the intentions for completion of server
related stuff so we can whip up a few lines. After that has been
resolved, it's probably time to re-talk design strategies.
>I'm not really absent, just not coding much right now. But I always check my
>email! So if anybody has questions about 1.9 just ask away. We really need
>people to say what they want done on it. Botnet is a given.. for now I'd forget
>about making a new botnet and work on the "oldbotnet" module so we can link up
>1.9 bots with 1.6 bots.
>I suspect part of the problem is that people have a hard time compiling it and
>getting it running. I'm sure the "bootstrap" process is still painful for a lot
>of people, which sucks. If anybody can tackle that, it's one of the most
>important issues I think.
>It's not a terribly unstable bot right now. This week I've run it for days at a
>time collecting valgrind data with no crashes.
>Smallish things needing to be done:
>1. More partyline commands
>2. Make some current commands more friends (maybe .-server should take
>3. Write help files
>In fact I think I'll write some help files right now. It's important because
>it's pretty much the only way to see what partyline commands are finished,
>other than looking in the source code.
>One thing I've asked for some time ago was for interested people to write
>flexible scripting framework. Right now a lot (probably most) of the scripting
>stuff is done, so you can write just about any script. Obviously some things
>like botnet commands are missing.
>This is another area where we need better documentation. There are lots of new
>commands, new binds to catch user and channel settings, filters to modify
>server input and output, etc, all available to scripts.
>Helping with script writing documentation is easier than it seems. There is a
>module called "script" with a bunch of files that divide up all the script
>support areas. Scriptuser.c contains all the scripting commands affecting
>users, scripttimer.c has all the timer commands, etc. All you have to do is go
>through a file and see what the arguments for each command are. The purpose of
>each command is pretty self-explanatory. The main thing that needs to be done
>is to gather all the information together in a nice file called
>script-commands.txt or something.
>Anyway, just send an email to the list if you have any questions or ideas.
>--- Will Buckner <wcc at techmonkeys.org> wrote:
>>Darko Ilic wrote:
>>>Unfortunantly, 1.9 maintainer and head coder has been absent lately
>>>and without his guidance nobody is willing to commit more code changes
>>>because there's no clear picture of how the CVS version should develop
>>>from here. This might be a good chance for you to get familliar with
>>>the code, so once we continue active development (or re-shuffle coding
>>>team) you'll be ready to contribute. In any case, you can always try
>>>submitting patches to patches at eggheads.org along with explanation sent
>>>to eggdev at eggheads.org
>>Well, I see no reason for development to halt in stdarg's absense. There
>>is still plenty to be done. Someone could start on the botnet protocol....
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
More information about the Eggdev