Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

prosody fails when jitsi_meet_jicofo_password changes #11

Closed
elijh opened this issue Apr 21, 2020 · 0 comments
Closed

prosody fails when jitsi_meet_jicofo_password changes #11

elijh opened this issue Apr 21, 2020 · 0 comments

Comments

@elijh
Copy link

elijh commented Apr 21, 2020

When the variable jitsi_meet_jicofo_password is changed, the jicofo config is correctly updated, but prosody still uses the old password for focus. This command needs to be re-run:

prosodyctl register focus auth.{{ jitsi_meet_server_name }} {{ jitsi_meet_jicofo_password }}

Doing so will update the focus.dat file.

funkyfuture added a commit to funkyfuture/ansible-role-jitsi-meet that referenced this issue May 2, 2020
As one can't know whether the password values changed.
While one could also check the presence in the designated files beforehand,
it would result in more tasks and roughly the same resource usage.

Addresses systemli#11
funkyfuture added a commit to funkyfuture/ansible-role-jitsi-meet that referenced this issue May 2, 2020
As one can't know whether the password values changed.
While one could also check the presence in the designated files beforehand,
it would result in more tasks and roughly the same resource usage.

Addresses systemli#11
funkyfuture added a commit to funkyfuture/ansible-role-jitsi-meet that referenced this issue May 2, 2020
As one can't know whether the password values changed.
While one could also check the presence in the designated files beforehand,
it would result in more tasks and roughly the same resource usage.

Addresses systemli#11
t2d pushed a commit that referenced this issue May 6, 2020
As one can't know whether the password values changed.
While one could also check the presence in the designated files beforehand,
it would result in more tasks and roughly the same resource usage.

Addresses #11
@t2d t2d closed this as completed in 3fb03db May 6, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant