Add checks when the binary is moved or other crucial changes #3972

Closed
opened 2025-11-02 05:32:15 -06:00 by GiteaMirror · 7 comments
Owner

Originally created by @guillep2k on GitHub (Sep 17, 2019).

  • Gitea version (or commit ref): 1.9.3

Description

Ref: #8208

If a user changes gitea binary location, the server seems to work initially, but fails later when users attempt to push commits.

We should have some check of where the server was installed the last time and update hooks and authorized_keys automatically or at least give the user some warnings.

Perhaps there are other nice checks that can be done at startup.

Originally created by @guillep2k on GitHub (Sep 17, 2019). - Gitea version (or commit ref): 1.9.3 ## Description Ref: #8208 If a user changes `gitea` binary location, the server seems to work initially, but fails later when users attempt to push commits. We should have some check of where the server was installed the last time and update hooks and `authorized_keys` automatically or at least give the user some warnings. Perhaps there are other nice checks that can be done at startup.
GiteaMirror added the issue/confirmedtype/enhancement labels 2025-11-02 05:32:15 -06:00
Author
Owner

@lunny commented on GitHub (Sep 18, 2019):

We could randomly chose one repository and generate a new script and compare it with that script on repositories to test if it's the same. We can give a warning information on console or admin UI or notification?

@lunny commented on GitHub (Sep 18, 2019): We could randomly chose one repository and generate a new script and compare it with that script on repositories to test if it's the same. We can give a warning information on console or admin UI or notification?
Author
Owner

@bagasme commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2019):

@lunny warnings should be thrown on both console and admin UI.

@bagasme commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2019): @lunny warnings should be thrown on both console and admin UI.
Author
Owner

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 28, 2019):

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs during the next 2 weeks. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 28, 2019): This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs during the next 2 weeks. Thank you for your contributions.
Author
Owner

@guillep2k commented on GitHub (Nov 28, 2019):

I think this check should be done at the instance start. It could share some code with "the doctor".

@guillep2k commented on GitHub (Nov 28, 2019): I think this check should be done at the instance start. It could share some code with "the doctor".
Author
Owner

@lunny commented on GitHub (Nov 29, 2019):

@guillep2k if you have many repository, this operation will spend many time when start. I don't think it's necessary to check that when start. A doctor command should be better.

As I said, if you really want to check that, we can chose some of repositories randomly to check but not every one.

@lunny commented on GitHub (Nov 29, 2019): @guillep2k if you have many repository, this operation will spend many time when start. I don't think it's necessary to check that when start. A doctor command should be better. As I said, if you really want to check that, we can chose some of repositories randomly to check but not every one.
Author
Owner

@guillep2k commented on GitHub (Nov 29, 2019):

Yes, I just wanted to ping the stale-bot, sorry.

@guillep2k commented on GitHub (Nov 29, 2019): Yes, I just wanted to ping the stale-bot, sorry.
Author
Owner

@lunny commented on GitHub (Nov 29, 2019):

Aha, @stale !

@lunny commented on GitHub (Nov 29, 2019): Aha, @stale !
Sign in to join this conversation.
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/gitea#3972