crazy4chrissi

Great. I can confirm this fixes that as well.

Yes, this change fixes the problem with duplicated entries. The problem that the link "Has Aliasdomains" links to an empty list of domains (even though there are alias domains) is still there.

I just found out: Only domains that have alias domains are duplicated. And the number of duplicates is exactly the number of alias domains. So I guess it is a problem with alias domains. If you still can't replicate, please let me know. Edit: After removing the alias domains, the duplicates are gone. Also the link to the alias domains leads to an empty list of domains.

I installed 0.10.7-1 and it does not quite fix the problem completely. In the previous version, the domains and all subdomains had been duplicated. Example: example.com [Statistics] example.com %PATH% [edit] [delete] [letsencrypt] somesub.example.com %PATH% [edit] [delete] [letsencrypt] example.com [Statistics] example.com %PATH% [edit] [delete] [letsencrypt] somesub.example.com %PATH% [edit] [delete] [letsencrypt] The part in bold is the duplicate that shouldn't be there. Now, the domain is there once, but under that, the line where you can configure it is duplicated. Example: example.com [Statistics] example.com %PATH% [edit] [delete] [letsencrypt] example.com %PATH% [edit] [delete] [letsencrypt] somesub.example.com %PATH% [edit] [delete] [letsencrypt] The bold part shouldn't be there. The same domains are affected as in the last version.

I encounter a strange issue in 0.10.6-1 (from Debian Stretch repository): For some customers, some domains show up multiple times. The domains appear once in admins domain list and in the customer dashboard. But in the domain settings of the customer, where the customer can configure subdomains, the same domain appears multiple times. Some domains twice, one domain 7 times. They link to the exact same edit link. I am not talking about subdomains, the affected domains do not even have subdomains. This is not the case for all domains, not even all domains of the affected customer. In the database, everything seems fine, the domain is only there once. It looks like there is some JOIN going wrong duplicating the domains. Edit: I checked a different server also running froxlor (same version) and it also is affected. There domains with subdomains are affected and the subdomains are also listed multiple times.

I got these errors after upgrading: Class 'Settings' not found in /var/www/froxlor/lib/init.php Debugging, I found that my template was incompatible with the new version. Moving it out of /var/www/froxlor/templates solved the issue. Just in case someone runs into the same issue.

That sounds and looks great. Good work! I think in the longrun it would make sense to separate the Froxlor frontend from the backend. I guess it could make sense to install the froxlor backend without the frontend, but use your own frontend. Or someone may come of with a CLI tool that can talk to the froxlor API and you don't need any webfrontend at all. That would be really cool. As I guess there are no other backends that support the same API, it does not really make sense to use the froxlor frontend without the backend. So I see the frontend as a component that requires the backend, but the backend as a component that could be used standalone.

I think there should be an universal Debian package for froxlor that asks you what you want (debconfig). This script should tell you that you need a webserver and that you have to choose between those offered. It should detect if one of the webservers is already installed and tell the user that it detected this and recommend using the one installed. But there should also be an option "install no webserver, I do it manually" for those that prefer writing their own werbserver or do not use a package but compiled one themselves (which would be difficult to detect for the install script). The same for all the other things like mailserver, ftp server, webmailer, pma etc. I think having lots of different packages does not make sense. It makes releasing a new version a lot more complicated and it confuses users. A newbie wouldn't know which package to choose. Having an installer that tells him "You need a webserver, choose one from the list. If you are unsure choose apache", a newbie would know what to do. (Although I think people that do not know any webserver should not install froxlor, but you can always argue "I install it on a local machine to learn things."...) So in conclusion, I vote for an improved installation process: http://forum.froxlor.org/index.php?/topic/1322-improving-the-froxlor-server-installation-process/