Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Gentoo Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-development/)
-   -   webapp-config needs a new maintainer (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-development/339091-webapp-config-needs-new-maintainer.html)

Benedikt Böhm 03-10-2010 05:52 AM

webapp-config needs a new maintainer
 
Hi!

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org> wrote:
> There are quite a few bugs open for it plus the latest version (1.50.18)
> is not even in Gentoo but on SourceForge only.

The release on sourceforge is not compatible with the current
implementation in Gentoo AFAIK.

> So your first task would be a proper bump and a maybe few bug fixes after:

webapp-config is in a horrible shape and also has several design
flaws. i wouldn't touch it. that's why i already added an idea to the
GSoC list for a complete w-c rewrite. i talked to gunnar in 2008 or
2009 at chemnitz linux days, and we agreed that w-c needs a rewrite.
but none of us had/has time to do it. hopefully gsoc can change this
situation.

Greetings,
Bene

Maciej Mrozowski 03-10-2010 02:09 PM

webapp-config needs a new maintainer
 
On Wednesday 10 of March 2010 07:52:28 Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > There are quite a few bugs open for it plus the latest version (1.50.18)
> > is not even in Gentoo but on SourceForge only.
>
> The release on sourceforge is not compatible with the current
> implementation in Gentoo AFAIK.
>
> > So your first task would be a proper bump and a maybe few bug fixes after:
> webapp-config is in a horrible shape and also has several design
> flaws. i wouldn't touch it. that's why i already added an idea to the
> GSoC list for a complete w-c rewrite. i talked to gunnar in 2008 or
> 2009 at chemnitz linux days, and we agreed that w-c needs a rewrite.
> but none of us had/has time to do it. hopefully gsoc can change this
> situation.

This issue always bothered me. Why do we need exclusive web-app config
application that effectively mirrors what emerge is supposed to do?
I mean installation/removal/updates, and what's the most important config
updates.
I see this solution suboptimal.
Don't bash me, maybe I'm obviously missing something but I'd really prefer
simpler, Debian-like approach to webapps, so:
- web-apps installed in /usr/share instead of /var/www (is there any benefit
from polluting /var/www with system-managed applications?)
- webapp-specific apache config installed in let's say /etc/apache2/conf.d/
and included from httpd.conf so that any application works out of the box
(Alias directive may be suitable in example below)

(example entry for phppgadmin:)
<Directory /usr/share/phppgadmin/>
DirectoryIndex index.php
Options +FollowSymLinks
AllowOverride None
Order deny,allow
Allow from all
<IfModule mod_php5.c>
php_flag magic_quotes_gpc Off
php_flag track_vars On
php_value include_path .
</IfModule>
</Directory>

That file (apache config) as well as wep-app specific config file
(/usr/share/phppgadmin/conf/config.inc.php) would be under config-protect, so
any modifications are tracked.

It's obviously less flexible than webapp-config (no automatic vhosts handling
- it would be installed initially for all vhosts, sure, one can easily
configure that), but at least doesn't need webapp-config anymore.

--
regards
MM

Benedikt Böhm 03-10-2010 02:17 PM

webapp-config needs a new maintainer
 
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 of March 2010 07:52:28 Benedikt Böhm wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > There are quite a few bugs open for it plus the latest version (1.50.18)
>> > is not even in Gentoo but on SourceForge only.
>>
>> The release on sourceforge is not compatible with the current
>> implementation in Gentoo AFAIK.
>>
>> webapp-config is in a horrible shape and also has several design
>> flaws. i wouldn't touch it. that's why i already added an idea to the
>> GSoC list for a complete w-c rewrite. i talked to gunnar in 2008 or
>> 2009 at chemnitz linux days, and we agreed that w-c needs a rewrite.
>> but none of us had/has time to do it. hopefully gsoc can change this
>> situation.
>
> This issue always bothered me. Why do we need exclusive web-app config
> application that effectively mirrors what emerge is supposed to do?

as you obviously figured the replicated package manager behaviour is
for installing apps into multiple vhosts. at first i thought this was
a nice idea, but after some time managing webapps with w-c, i really
hate it and install most things manually nowadays ;-)

> Don't bash me, maybe I'm obviously missing something but I'd really prefer
> simpler, Debian-like approach to webapps, so:
> - web-apps installed in /usr/share instead of /var/www (is there any benefit
> from polluting /var/www with system-managed applications?)
> - webapp-specific apache config installed in let's say /etc/apache2/conf.d/
> and included from httpd.conf so that any application works out of the box
> (Alias directive may be suitable in example below)

i am in favour of debian-like approach too, but i think there are
people relying on the w-c approach now, so an optimal solution would
be to just make webapp-config optional, but this may be an impossible
task, i don't really know.

Bene

Ciaran McCreesh 03-10-2010 02:19 PM

webapp-config needs a new maintainer
 
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:09:26 +0100
Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@gmail.com> wrote:
> This issue always bothered me. Why do we need exclusive web-app
> config application that effectively mirrors what emerge is supposed
> to do? I mean installation/removal/updates, and what's the most
> important config updates.

webapp-config was originally designed as a standalone, distribution
independent, multi-os tool (Windows support being a priority) that would
operate largely independently of the package manager. It just happened
to have been developed on Gentoo first. In the early days it would get
up to all kinds of crazy stuff like trying to call 'emerge -C' from
within pkg_postinst of an ebuild...

Unfortunately, in those days, bypassing Portage was considered easier
than extending it.

--
Ciaran McCreesh


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.