[gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Chuck Short]

Hello,

We are thinking of changing the layout of the apache start page
for the apache ebuilds. The current idea can be found:

http://dev.gentoo.org/~zul/apache/

If you have any comments to make. Please feel free to do so.

Thanks
chuck

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Paul de Vrieze]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 26 May 2004 03:17, Chuck Short wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are thinking of changing the layout of the apache start page
> for the apache ebuilds. The current idea can be found:
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~zul/apache/
>
> If you have any comments to make. Please feel free to do so.
>

Looks great, only the local documentation should probably refer to /doc 
instead of file:///usr/share/doc

Paul

- -- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAsgGJbKx5DBjWFdsRAnTDAKDBRfGtxf0xNHn/GdzFMFaZxa14zwCgjM2N
MeO9qt+6Cgfrc7WP+W4zB0E=
=LLUB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Chuck Short]

On Monday 24 May 2004 14:06, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wednesday 26 May 2004 03:17, Chuck Short wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > We are thinking of changing the layout of the apache start page
> > for the apache ebuilds. The current idea can be found:
> >
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~zul/apache/
> >
> > If you have any comments to make. Please feel free to do so.
>
> Looks great, only the local documentation should probably refer to /doc
> instead of file:///usr/share/doc
>
> Paul
>
> - --
> Paul de Vrieze
> Gentoo Developer
> Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
> Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFAsgGJbKx5DBjWFdsRAnTDAKDBRfGtxf0xNHn/GdzFMFaZxa14zwCgjM2N
> MeO9qt+6Cgfrc7WP+W4zB0E=
> =LLUB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Actually I would prefer to keep the /docs as it is. 

Regards
chuck

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 476 bytes --]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 01:17:42 +0000 Chuck Short <zul@gentoo.org> wrote:
| We are thinking of changing the layout of the apache start page
| for the apache ebuilds. The current idea can be found:
| 
| http://dev.gentoo.org/~zul/apache/

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.gentoo.org%2F%7Ezul%2Fapache%2F

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[David Stanek]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 632 bytes --]

On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 01:17:42AM +0000, Chuck Short wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> We are thinking of changing the layout of the apache start page
> for the apache ebuilds. The current idea can be found:
> 
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~zul/apache/
> 
> If you have any comments to make. Please feel free to do so.
> 
> Thanks
> chuck
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Looks good. It will be nice to have ticket #20399 taken care of. I
would imagine we would start with the .en version and gradually get
it translated to other languages?

-- 
David Stanek (roninds)
dstanek@dstanek.com
http://www.dstanek.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Erik Swanson]

On May 25, 2004, at 6:17 PM, Chuck Short wrote:

> We are thinking of changing the layout of the apache start page
> for the apache ebuilds. The current idea can be found:
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~zul/apache/
>
> If you have any comments to make. Please feel free to do so.

I like the idea, but I'd appreciate being able to turn it off with 
something like USE="-branding".

'branding'  is a global use flag I'd like to see implemented that would 
toggle all branding  (logos/artwork, custom themes, mentions of gentoo 
in a package's build info, etc...) of packages. I do think such a flag 
would belong in make.defaults because branding is a reasonable thing to 
do by default and even I would only want to turn it off in a few cases. 
(Examples of branding I'd like to turn off are the gnome splash screen, 
qmail's banner, the apache banner on error pages, and of course this.)

---
Erik Swanson
Note: non-list emails to this address are automatically discarded due 
to excessive spam!


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Josh Glover]

Quoth Erik Swanson:

> 'branding'  is a global use flag I'd like to see implemented that would
> toggle all branding  (logos/artwork, custom themes, mentions of gentoo
> in a package's build info, etc...) of packages. I do think such a flag
> would belong in make.defaults because branding is a reasonable thing to
> do by default and even I would only want to turn it off in a few cases.
> (Examples of branding I'd like to turn off are the gnome splash screen,
> qmail's banner, the apache banner on error pages, and of course this.)

For what it is worth, I second this. Great idea, Erik!

-- 
Josh Glover

GPG keyID 0xDE8A3103 (C3E4 FA9E 1E07 BBDB 6D8B  07AB 2BF1 67A1 DE8A 3103)
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys DE8A3103


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 794 bytes --]

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 08:22:12AM -0700, Erik Swanson wrote:
> I like the idea, but I'd appreciate being able to turn it off with 
> something like USE="-branding".
How about USE="nobranding" instead? And then not being in
make.defaults, but just available to use, as this is a very specific
request.

One of the reasons that Chuck is considering a custom Apache start page,
is that we want it to be completely possible for users to have both
Apache1 and Apache2 on their systems, without conflicting files when
serving from the same default location.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Carsten Lohrke]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 24 May 2004 20:32, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> How about USE="nobranding" instead?

I don't like no* use flags at all. It would be far better, if use flags would 
always enable features and not sometimes enable, sometimes disable.


Carsten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAskSUVwbzmvGLSW8RAvDfAJ9ocez+eixZLvtwPaz7sDcEFX0IygCgvVBU
mlT8az4Epx6ifCVaPW3qY5Q=
=mIcY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[rob]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 481 bytes --]

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 08:52:58PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Monday 24 May 2004 20:32, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > How about USE="nobranding" instead?
> 
> I don't like no* use flags at all. It would be far better, if use flags would 
> always enable features and not sometimes enable, sometimes disable.

And what happens when the flag should be on by default?

-- 
rob holland - [ director @ ereet ltd ]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Markus Nigbur]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 631 bytes --]

On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 20:57, rob@ereet.co.uk wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 08:52:58PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > On Monday 24 May 2004 20:32, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > > How about USE="nobranding" instead?
> > 
> > I don't like no* use flags at all. It would be far better, if use flags would 
> > always enable features and not sometimes enable, sometimes disable.
> 
> And what happens when the flag should be on by default?

/etc/make.profile/make.defaults

-- 
 (o_  Markus Nigbur
 //\  Gentoo Linux Developer
[ ]/_ http://www.gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 664 bytes --]

On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 14:57, rob@ereet.co.uk wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 08:52:58PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > On Monday 24 May 2004 20:32, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > > How about USE="nobranding" instead?
> > 
> > I don't like no* use flags at all. It would be far better, if use flags would 
> > always enable features and not sometimes enable, sometimes disable.
> 
> And what happens when the flag should be on by default?

It gets added to use.defaults for the profile.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer
Games/LiveCD Teams
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Josh Glover]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 646 bytes --]

Quoth Carsten Lohrke (Mon 2004-05-24 08:52:58PM +0200):

> On Monday 24 May 2004 20:32, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>
> > How about USE="nobranding" instead?
> 
> I don't like no* use flags at all. It would be far better, if use flags would 
> always enable features and not sometimes enable, sometimes disable.

Agreed. Plus, a global 'branding' USE flag sounds like a great idea!

-- 
Josh Glover

Gentoo Developer (http://dev.gentoo.org/~jmglov/)
Tokyo Linux Users Group Listmaster (http://www.tlug.jp/)

GPG keyID 0xDE8A3103 (C3E4 FA9E 1E07 BBDB 6D8B  07AB 2BF1 67A1 DE8A 3103)
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys DE8A3103

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[foser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1137 bytes --]

On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 08:22 -0700, Erik Swanson wrote:
> I like the idea, but I'd appreciate being able to turn it off with 
> something like USE="-branding".
> 
> 'branding'  is a global use flag I'd like to see implemented that would 
> toggle all branding  (logos/artwork, custom themes, mentions of gentoo 
> in a package's build info, etc...) of packages. I do think such a flag 
> would belong in make.defaults because branding is a reasonable thing to 
> do by default and even I would only want to turn it off in a few cases. 
> (Examples of branding I'd like to turn off are the gnome splash screen, 
> qmail's banner, the apache banner on error pages, and of course this.)

This has been brought up before. Gentoo minimizes branding and I do not
think this warrants yet another USE flag. This is exactly what the
'hardened php' thread was about, introducing USE flags for such
trivialities.

Using another splash screen for gnome is editing 1 gconf key. I do not
consider it intrusive (you see it for like 3 secs & how often do you log
in) & I never had one complaint about it (on the contrary).

- foser

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC - apache start page.

[Gabriel Ebner]

Hello,

foser wrote:
> This has been brought up before. Gentoo minimizes branding and I do not
> think this warrants yet another USE flag. This is exactly what the
> 'hardened php' thread was about, introducing USE flags for such
> trivialities.
> 
> Using another splash screen for gnome is editing 1 gconf key. I do not
> consider it intrusive (you see it for like 3 secs & how often do you log
> in) & I never had one complaint about it (on the contrary).

However, such a branding USE flag would be nice, and there are currently two
packages in ebuilds which could make use of it (gnome, gdm) AFAIK, with
maybe apache coming.

I suspect that there are other users out there who'd like to have a more
vanilla system.

        Gabriel.

-- 
Gabriel Ebner - reverse "ta.renbeleirbag@eg"


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC - apache start page.

[Josh Glover]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1617 bytes --]

Quoth Gabriel Ebner (Tue 2004-05-25 12:34:11PM +0200):

> foser wrote:
>
> > This has been brought up before. Gentoo minimizes branding and I do not
> > think this warrants yet another USE flag. This is exactly what the
> > 'hardened php' thread was about, introducing USE flags for such
> > trivialities.

What is trivial to you may not be to others.

> > Using another splash screen for gnome is editing 1 gconf key. I do not
> > consider it intrusive (you see it for like 3 secs & how often do you log
> > in) & I never had one complaint about it (on the contrary).
>
> However, such a branding USE flag would be nice, and there are currently two
> packages in ebuilds which could make use of it (gnome, gdm) AFAIK, with
> maybe apache coming.
>
> I suspect that there are other users out there who'd like to have a more
> vanilla system.

Exactly! If there was ever a good candidate for a global USE flag,
this is it. Some might want vanilla packages, some might want the
Gentoo "bling-bling", why not let them choose, especially since
people have gone to the trouble of creating awesome Gentoo artwork! :)

Foser, we cannot just refuse to add new flags when there is a compelling
reason for one! Just because you think there are too many USE flags is
*not* a good reason to be against adding any more just out of principle!

-- 
Josh Glover

Gentoo Developer (http://dev.gentoo.org/~jmglov/)
Tokyo Linux Users Group Listmaster (http://www.tlug.jp/)

GPG keyID 0xDE8A3103 (C3E4 FA9E 1E07 BBDB 6D8B  07AB 2BF1 67A1 DE8A 3103)
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys DE8A3103

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC - apache start page.

[foser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2861 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 07:59 -0400, Josh Glover wrote:
> Quoth Gabriel Ebner (Tue 2004-05-25 12:34:11PM +0200):
> 
> > foser wrote:
> >
> > > This has been brought up before. Gentoo minimizes branding and I do not
> > > think this warrants yet another USE flag. This is exactly what the
> > > 'hardened php' thread was about, introducing USE flags for such
> > > trivialities.
> 
> What is trivial to you may not be to others.

Yeah and what is trivial to you may not be to others. This is exactly
what i mean with adding flags for rare situations : there's always
people not going to like a certain default choice, you can't possibly
add USE flags for all situations.

> > > Using another splash screen for gnome is editing 1 gconf key. I do not
> > > consider it intrusive (you see it for like 3 secs & how often do you log
> > > in) & I never had one complaint about it (on the contrary).
> >
> > However, such a branding USE flag would be nice, and there are currently two
> > packages in ebuilds which could make use of it (gnome, gdm) AFAIK, with
> > maybe apache coming.
> >
> > I suspect that there are other users out there who'd like to have a more
> > vanilla system.

'more of a vanilla system'.. get a hold on here. Does 'vanilla' really
mean to you you can't see a gentoo logo ? It's more about sources that
are not patched the hell out of.

> Exactly! If there was ever a good candidate for a global USE flag,
> this is it. Some might want vanilla packages, some might want the
> Gentoo "bling-bling", why not let them choose, especially since
> people have gone to the trouble of creating awesome Gentoo artwork! :)

Yeah this is the best candidate for a global USE flag i've seen in a
long long time. Really.. no, i'm not being sarcastic here.

It's a matter of setting 1 config file if you don't like it, is that so
hard ?

> Foser, we cannot just refuse to add new flags when there is a compelling
> reason for one! Just because you think there are too many USE flags is
> *not* a good reason to be against adding any more just out of principle!

Actually it is. This is a perfect example of such a stupid flag that
99.9% of the people don't care about. Branding in Gentoo is not
intrusive and minimal, especially in comparison to most other larger
distros.

And most interesting part -brought up in earlier discussions about this
same triviality- is that no-one ever complained about the branding of
grub which has been there for an eternity. Or what about the cursor pack
coming with X (they're not on by default, but do take up space). Noone
cared. Hell if zul had just added this to apache without notification I
doubt it would've ever been discussed.

Yeah we want to choice ad infinitum. I rather rip the 'branding' out
than adding a USE flag for such a non-issue.

- foser

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC - apache start page.

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3001 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 08:47, foser wrote:
> Actually it is. This is a perfect example of such a stupid flag that
> 99.9% of the people don't care about. Branding in Gentoo is not
> intrusive and minimal, especially in comparison to most other larger
> distros.
> 
> And most interesting part -brought up in earlier discussions about this
> same triviality- is that no-one ever complained about the branding of
> grub which has been there for an eternity. Or what about the cursor pack
> coming with X (they're not on by default, but do take up space). Noone
> cared. Hell if zul had just added this to apache without notification I
> doubt it would've ever been discussed.
> 
> Yeah we want to choice ad infinitum. I rather rip the 'branding' out
> than adding a USE flag for such a non-issue.

I tend to agree.  It isn't like we're removing choice.  It really is
quite simple to edit a line or two and change the theme for gdm or to
change the splash in gnome.  I simply don't get it.  I find branding
rather nice, since there has been a large amount of work done on some of
the Gentoo artwork out there.  In fact, I would like to see more of
it... not to the point of being annoying or intrusive, but a couple
little logos in a few more places.

You guys act like we're taking away your right to "rm" the artwork.  It
seems that things are starting to get to a point with Gentoo to where no
matter what us devs do, you have somebody out there who is going to
ridicule our every move.  Quite honestly, we don't *want* those people. 
We want people who are really out to help others, that is why we choose
to employ some sanity in what we allow in portage.  If we listened to
everything that everyone said, we would have portage written in
python/perl/C/C++/java and it would have a
mysql/postgres/firebird/berkdb back-end, there would be 100,000 USE
flags, all with conflicting uses on different packages, there would be
thousands of broken ebuilds submitted by users and having no maintainers
to speak of, there would be hundreds of -cvs ebuilds, which would break
at any given moment when the upstream developers commited something to
their CVS tree, and there would be no management to keep things in line.

Yeah, that's the Gentoo "of the users" that I want to be a part of...
:rolleyes:

Normally, I leave this stuff alone, but it is just getting really old to
hear the same busted arguments over and over and over again, and I
haven't even been with Gentoo as a developer for a year.

I can understand the frustrations that users sometimes get due to the
appearance of lack of movement of the Gentoo development team, but I
honestly think that most people simply don't realize just how much work
can go into development.  Not to mention the fact that every last one of
us do this as volunteers.  This is not our job.  We do not get paid.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer
Games/LiveCD Teams
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC - apache start page.

[John Nilsson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4501 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 15:22, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 08:47, foser wrote:
> > Actually it is. This is a perfect example of such a stupid flag that
> > 99.9% of the people don't care about. Branding in Gentoo is not
> > intrusive and minimal, especially in comparison to most other larger
> > distros.
> > 
> > And most interesting part -brought up in earlier discussions about this
> > same triviality- is that no-one ever complained about the branding of
> > grub which has been there for an eternity. Or what about the cursor pack
> > coming with X (they're not on by default, but do take up space). Noone
> > cared. Hell if zul had just added this to apache without notification I
> > doubt it would've ever been discussed.
> > 
> > Yeah we want to choice ad infinitum. I rather rip the 'branding' out
> > than adding a USE flag for such a non-issue.
> 
> I tend to agree.  It isn't like we're removing choice.  It really is
> quite simple to edit a line or two and change the theme for gdm or to
> change the splash in gnome.  I simply don't get it.  I find branding
> rather nice, since there has been a large amount of work done on some of
> the Gentoo artwork out there.  In fact, I would like to see more of
> it... not to the point of being annoying or intrusive, but a couple
> little logos in a few more places.
> 
> You guys act like we're taking away your right to "rm" the artwork.  It
> seems that things are starting to get to a point with Gentoo to where no
> matter what us devs do, you have somebody out there who is going to
> ridicule our every move.  Quite honestly, we don't *want* those people. 
> We want people who are really out to help others, that is why we choose
> to employ some sanity in what we allow in portage.  If we listened to
> everything that everyone said, we would have portage written in
> python/perl/C/C++/java and it would have a
> mysql/postgres/firebird/berkdb back-end, there would be 100,000 USE
> flags, all with conflicting uses on different packages, there would be
> thousands of broken ebuilds submitted by users and having no maintainers
> to speak of, there would be hundreds of -cvs ebuilds, which would break
> at any given moment when the upstream developers commited something to
> their CVS tree, and there would be no management to keep things in line.
> 
> Yeah, that's the Gentoo "of the users" that I want to be a part of...
> :rolleyes:
> 
> Normally, I leave this stuff alone, but it is just getting really old to
> hear the same busted arguments over and over and over again, and I
> haven't even been with Gentoo as a developer for a year.
> 
> I can understand the frustrations that users sometimes get due to the
> appearance of lack of movement of the Gentoo development team, but I
> honestly think that most people simply don't realize just how much work
> can go into development.  Not to mention the fact that every last one of
> us do this as volunteers.  This is not our job.  We do not get paid.

Can it be because Gentoo is changing?

In the beginning gentoo just provided a document describing the guts an
said "If it ain't working for ya, follow the manual and learn!"
But somewhere along the ride this idea of protecting the users from them
self was born, and here we are.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, just that it's new for many users.
When I started with gentoo it was a distro for developers, giving me the
chance to control every last bit of my OS with minimal fuss. Gentoo has
grown into a deployment distro though and the QA demands have exploded.

Also in the beginning the system was changing fast, which created the
impression that anyone with a voice was part of the team. This together
with the feeling of being in control of the system (a side effect of how
easy portage is to use) lead to the fast expansion and popularity of
gentoo. The gentoo community we're so famous for. And as you remember
the community has always had problems with the elite, (rember the
gentoo-core issue?).

I think what we see now are the effects of schizophrenia. The result
from trying to keep the heritage of "meta-"distribution for educated
users(read developers) and to be a full blown deployment distribution
for not so educated users(read clueless admins).

The term "meta-distribution" sort of implies that it ain't ready for
user. Protecting the users might take power away from the distributor.

-John


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC - apache start page.

[Chris Smith]

On Wednesday 26 May 2004 00:47, foser wrote:
> Yeah and what is trivial to you may not be to others. This is exactly
> what i mean with adding flags for rare situations : there's always
> people not going to like a certain default choice, you can't possibly
> add USE flags for all situations.

Maybe Dev's (bool flamesuit = true;) should start commenting ebuilds more (yes 
I realise it means longer sync time), but a few "comment this out if you 
don't want foo" comments could probably go a long way if you don't want local 
use flags.

I do not think that is an ideal solution. Local use flags are a hack but not 
as much as editing an ebuild everytime you install the software! We want 
people to have control over the built package, without compiling it 
themselves. What is the easiest way to get this done?

Cheers
Chris.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Gontran Zepeda]

% Chuck Short wrote:
> 
> We are thinking of changing the layout of the apache start page
> for the apache ebuilds. The current idea can be found:
> 
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~zul/apache/

Perhaps moving the "Seeing this instead..." section to the top of the page
in parallel with the dist default index, with all of the Gentoo specific
content below.

It's a lovely effort, but I'm grasping at straws trying to understand the
'Welcome to Gentoo' message at the top of the page.  Wouldn't 'Welcome to
Apache' or 'Apache Installation Succesful' be more sensical?

-- 
Gontran
E Pluribus Unix

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Nick Dimiduk]

Gontran Zepeda wrote:
> % Chuck Short wrote:
> 
>>We are thinking of changing the layout of the apache start page
>>for the apache ebuilds. The current idea can be found:
>>
>>http://dev.gentoo.org/~zul/apache/
> 
> 
> Perhaps moving the "Seeing this instead..." section to the top of the page
> in parallel with the dist default index, with all of the Gentoo specific
> content below.
> 
> It's a lovely effort, but I'm grasping at straws trying to understand the
> 'Welcome to Gentoo' message at the top of the page.  Wouldn't 'Welcome to
> Apache' or 'Apache Installation Succesful' be more sensical?
> 

I agree here; too much of a gentoo brand plug IMHO.  I like the "Apache 
Installation Successful" title better, and putting the search below the 
"Seeing this instead..." rather than above it.  Nice work.

-Nick Dimiduk
http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~dimiduk/

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Stroller]

On May 21, 2004, at 10:58 pm, Stuart Herbert wrote:
>
> I'm sure webapp-config can be improved, but from the feedback I've 
> had, I'd
> say that the main problem people have (apart from my stupid bugs ;-) 
> is that
> they just don't h.a.f.c. about virtual hosting.

On May 26, 2004, at 2:17 am, Chuck Short wrote:
>
> We are thinking of changing the layout of the apache start page
> for the apache ebuilds. The current idea can be found:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~zul/apache/

If people don't have a clue about virtual hosting, would it not be 
better for the default Apache start page to document the correct 
configuration & directory hierarchy layout for the version of Apache 
that they have emerged. I for one have found the changes made to Apache 
in recent months confusing, and don't know where to find documentation 
on the correct way to set up my webserver under Gentoo.

Stroller.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Chuck Short]

Whats confusing about it?

chuck

On Monday 24 May 2004 19:15, Stroller wrote:
> On May 21, 2004, at 10:58 pm, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > I'm sure webapp-config can be improved, but from the feedback I've
> > had, I'd
> > say that the main problem people have (apart from my stupid bugs ;-)
> > is that
> > they just don't h.a.f.c. about virtual hosting.
>
> On May 26, 2004, at 2:17 am, Chuck Short wrote:
> > We are thinking of changing the layout of the apache start page
> > for the apache ebuilds. The current idea can be found:
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~zul/apache/
>
> If people don't have a clue about virtual hosting, would it not be
> better for the default Apache start page to document the correct
> configuration & directory hierarchy layout for the version of Apache
> that they have emerged. I for one have found the changes made to Apache
> in recent months confusing, and don't know where to find documentation
> on the correct way to set up my webserver under Gentoo.
>
> Stroller.
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Stroller]

Well, this may simply be because I've upgraded from a previous 
installation of Apache2, or it may be because I didn't see the ewarn 
when I emerged, but I used to have a /home/www/htdocs/ directory in 
which everything installed. I believe that cgi-bin, icons & error were 
in there..?

Now I find that I have separate /var/www/htdocs/ & /var/www/localhost 
directories and that cgi-bin, icons & error go in the top-level 
/var/www/. GLEP 11 is presumably not intended as user-documentation, so 
an explanation for someone who finds GLEP 11 heavy-going would be 
appreciated.

My server is never addressed as "localhost". I do use virtuals, 
although I'd be happy to admit I don't have a clue about them. I 
believe that when I originally emerged Apache2 I made suitable 
directories for compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org & www.stroller.uk.eu.org 
within htdocs & pointed the virtual hosting at those directories. When 
squirrelmail emerged to htdocs I could simply symlink 
mail.stroller.uk.eu.org to squirrelmail in the same directory. Now 
compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org & www.stroller.uk.eu.org reside within the 
/var/www/ alongside localhost

In writing this email to you I find that an emerge --update has placed 
the new squirrelmail in /var/www/htdocs/, a directory which is now 
otherwise fairly redundant, as it only contains the default Apache 
start-page (in several languages). That update to squirrelmail has been 
ignored the past month, as I wasn't aware it would go there.

This is what _I_ find confusing, however it was you that stated:

> I'd say that the main problem people have (apart from my stupid bugs 
> ;-)
> is that they just don't h.a.f.c. about virtual hosting.

In what other ways have users demonstrated to you that the don't have a 
clue about virtual hosting..? Wouldn't the default start page be a good 
place to address this with a little documentation..?

I would be the first to commend the design & layout of the new start 
page which is proposed, but since users will wish to replace this with 
their own start page, it will only be seen by the system administrator, 
and hopefully not for too long. I think this would be a percfect place 
to display some _useful_ information.

Stroller.


On May 26, 2004, at 1:58 pm, Chuck Short wrote:

> Whats confusing about it?
>
>> If people don't have a clue about virtual hosting, would it not be
>> better for the default Apache start page to document the correct
>> configuration & directory hierarchy layout for the version of Apache
>> that they have emerged. I for one have found the changes made to 
>> Apache
>> in recent months confusing, and don't know where to find documentation
>> on the correct way to set up my webserver under Gentoo.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4968 bytes --]

On Tuesday 25 May 2004 10:29, Stroller wrote:
> Well, this may simply be because I've upgraded from a previous
> installation of Apache2, or it may be because I didn't see the ewarn
> when I emerged, but I used to have a /home/www/htdocs/ directory in
> which everything installed. I believe that cgi-bin, icons & error were
> in there..?

Gentoo used to use /home/htdocs as the ServerRoot for Apache.  It was moved 
to /var/www/localhost round about the release of apache-2.0.48-r1.

IIRC, the move happened without much warning because we had to release -r1 to 
address a security problem.  It just happened that -r1 used the proposed 
defaults, and we had to get the fix out quickly.

> Now I find that I have separate /var/www/htdocs/ & /var/www/localhost
> directories and that cgi-bin, icons & error go in the top-level
> /var/www/. 

Apache should be installing this arrangement:

	/var/www/localhost
	|- htdocs
	|- cgi-bin
	|- icons
	|- error

This is so that you can create new virtual hosts under /var/www.

> GLEP 11 is presumably not intended as user-documentation, so 
> an explanation for someone who finds GLEP 11 heavy-going would be
> appreciated.

I have asked for help from the gentoo-doc project; unfortunately, no-one has 
been able to volunteer their time to help us with docs.

David Stanek has been kind enough to start work on this.  You can find a draft 
at:

	http://roninds.homelinux.net/vhost.html

We really need help from people who can spare the time to help us write some 
good docs.  Otherwise, you'll have to wait until they're top of my priority 
list, and then I'll write them myself ;-)

This information was posted to the gentoo-web-user@g.o mailing list back in 
April.

> My server is never addressed as "localhost". 

Doesn't matter.  If we're going to make it possible for you to install 
web-based apps using Portage, they have to have a default home.  That's 
what /var/www/localhost is.

> I do use virtuals, 
> although I'd be happy to admit I don't have a clue about them. I
> believe that when I originally emerged Apache2 I made suitable
> directories for compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org & www.stroller.uk.eu.org
> within htdocs & pointed the virtual hosting at those directories. When
> squirrelmail emerged to htdocs I could simply symlink
> mail.stroller.uk.eu.org to squirrelmail in the same directory. Now
> compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org & www.stroller.uk.eu.org reside within the
> /var/www/ alongside localhost

You can still symlink if you wish.  Nothing we've changed prevents you from 
doing so.

> In writing this email to you I find that an emerge --update has placed
> the new squirrelmail in /var/www/htdocs/, a directory which is now
> otherwise fairly redundant, as it only contains the default Apache
> start-page (in several languages). That update to squirrelmail has been
> ignored the past month, as I wasn't aware it would go there.

Okay, sounds like you're running with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86.  It also sounds 
like your /etc/vhosts/webapp-config file is incorrect too.

I recommend that you run

	emerge -C squirrelmail
	emerge webapp-config
	etc-update
	emerge squirrelmail

to restore your system to something approaching sanity.

I'd also recommend that you either pay closer attention to what and where 
Portage installs things, or that you stop running with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86.

> This is what _I_ find confusing, however it was you that stated:
> > I'd say that the main problem people have (apart from my stupid bugs
> > ;-)
> > is that they just don't h.a.f.c. about virtual hosting.

Actually, it wasn't Chuck who said that, it was me.

> In what other ways have users demonstrated to you that the don't have a
> clue about virtual hosting..? 

This is based on my personal experience of directly talking to Gentoo users 
about web-based applications over the last month or two.  Most users are 
comfortable w/ using their box to serve pages for just the one domain; moving 
to using name-based virtual servers has demonstrated that there's a bit more 
to read about.

There are good docs already available from Apache's website, explaining how 
virtual hosting works.  We just need some help to write some Gentoo-specific 
ones - especially ones that show you how much easier it is to do on Gentoo 
than on <insert alternative Linux distribution here>.

Advance warning: when I can make the time, I plan to look at the idea of 
installing Apache with virtual hosting ON by default.

Hope that helps,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                              stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                                       http://www.gentoo.org/
                                                   http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/

GnuPG key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Stroller]

On May 25, 2004, at 6:48 pm, Stuart Herbert wrote:
>
> Gentoo used to use /home/htdocs as the ServerRoot for Apache.  It was 
> moved
> to /var/www/localhost round about the release of apache-2.0.48-r1.

I was aware of this. It is the structural changes beneath the document 
root that have confused me.


>> GLEP 11 is presumably not intended as user-documentation, so
>> an explanation for someone who finds GLEP 11 heavy-going would be
>> appreciated.
>
> I have asked for help from the gentoo-doc project; unfortunately, 
> no-one has
> been able to volunteer their time to help us with docs.
>
> David Stanek has been kind enough to start work on this.  You can find 
> a draft
> at:
>
> 	http://roninds.homelinux.net/vhost.html

Thank you for that. Perhaps a link to the final documentation would be 
appropriate on the new Apache start page..? I'm tempted to suggest 
adopting the current draft as final, so that users can submit bugs 
against it, but that could be messy.

>> My server is never addressed as "localhost".
>
> Doesn't matter.  If we're going to make it possible for you to install
> web-based apps using Portage, they have to have a default home.  That's
> what /var/www/localhost is.

Fair enough. Thank you for explaining.

>> In writing this email to you I find that an emerge --update has placed
>> the new squirrelmail in /var/www/htdocs/, a directory which is now
>> otherwise fairly redundant, as it only contains the default Apache
>> start-page (in several languages). That update to squirrelmail has 
>> been
>> ignored the past month, as I wasn't aware it would go there.
>
> Okay, sounds like you're running with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86.

Nope, I'm not. Things probably just got messed up during the transition 
from /home/htdocs to /var/www

> It also sounds
> like your /etc/vhosts/webapp-config file is incorrect too.

   $ less /etc/vhosts/webapp-config
   /etc/vhosts/webapp-config: No such file or directory

> I recommend that you run
>
> 	emerge -C squirrelmail
> 	emerge webapp-config

Okies. I've emerged that now. The /etc/vhosts/webapp-config file looks 
very well-documented, but I guess I'm going to have to spend more time 
trying to understand Apache & it's documents layout.

> I'd also recommend that you either pay closer attention to what and 
> where
> Portage installs things, or that you stop running with 
> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86.

*cough*

>> What other ways have users demonstrated to you that the don't have a
>> clue about virtual hosting..?
>
> This is based on my personal experience of directly talking to Gentoo 
> users
> about web-based applications over the last month or two.  Most users 
> are
> comfortable w/ using their box to serve pages for just the one domain; 
> moving
> to using name-based virtual servers has demonstrated that there's a 
> bit more
> to read about.

I look forward to the documentation.

Stroller.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1657 bytes --]

On Wednesday 26 May 2004 11:16, Stroller wrote:
> I was aware of this. It is the structural changes beneath the document
> root that have confused me.

As far as I know, there have been no structural changes beneath the document 
root.  By default, we still install packages so that they are accessable via

	http://localhost/${PN}/

where ${PN} is the name of the package.

> Thank you for that. Perhaps a link to the final documentation would be
> appropriate on the new Apache start page..? I'm tempted to suggest
> adopting the current draft as final, so that users can submit bugs
> against it, but that could be messy.

I'd definitely want a link to the final version of this document on the new 
Apache start page.

> > Okay, sounds like you're running with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86.
>
> Nope, I'm not. Things probably just got messed up during the transition
> from /home/htdocs to /var/www

Strange.  The webapp-config'ized ebuild for squirrelmail is marked ~x86.

> Okies. I've emerged that now. The /etc/vhosts/webapp-config file looks
> very well-documented, but I guess I'm going to have to spend more time
> trying to understand Apache & it's documents layout.

We will work harder to get these things documented too.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                              stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                                       http://www.gentoo.org/
                                                   http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/

GnuPG key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Chuck Short]

> This is what _I_ find confusing, however it was you that stated:
> > I'd say that the main problem people have (apart from my stupid bugs
> > ;-)
> > is that they just don't h.a.f.c. about virtual hosting.
>
>


Sorry I never wrote that.

chuck

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Chuck Short]

Hello,

Stuart will answering your concens when he gets home.

Thanks
chuck

On Tuesday 25 May 2004 09:29, Stroller wrote:
> Well, this may simply be because I've upgraded from a previous
> installation of Apache2, or it may be because I didn't see the ewarn
> when I emerged, but I used to have a /home/www/htdocs/ directory in
> which everything installed. I believe that cgi-bin, icons & error were
> in there..?
>
> Now I find that I have separate /var/www/htdocs/ & /var/www/localhost
> directories and that cgi-bin, icons & error go in the top-level
> /var/www/. GLEP 11 is presumably not intended as user-documentation, so
> an explanation for someone who finds GLEP 11 heavy-going would be
> appreciated.
>
> My server is never addressed as "localhost". I do use virtuals,
> although I'd be happy to admit I don't have a clue about them. I
> believe that when I originally emerged Apache2 I made suitable
> directories for compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org & www.stroller.uk.eu.org
> within htdocs & pointed the virtual hosting at those directories. When
> squirrelmail emerged to htdocs I could simply symlink
> mail.stroller.uk.eu.org to squirrelmail in the same directory. Now
> compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org & www.stroller.uk.eu.org reside within the
> /var/www/ alongside localhost
>
> In writing this email to you I find that an emerge --update has placed
> the new squirrelmail in /var/www/htdocs/, a directory which is now
> otherwise fairly redundant, as it only contains the default Apache
> start-page (in several languages). That update to squirrelmail has been
> ignored the past month, as I wasn't aware it would go there.
>
> This is what _I_ find confusing, however it was you that stated:
> > I'd say that the main problem people have (apart from my stupid bugs
> > ;-)
> > is that they just don't h.a.f.c. about virtual hosting.
>
> In what other ways have users demonstrated to you that the don't have a
> clue about virtual hosting..? Wouldn't the default start page be a good
> place to address this with a little documentation..?
>
> I would be the first to commend the design & layout of the new start
> page which is proposed, but since users will wish to replace this with
> their own start page, it will only be seen by the system administrator,
> and hopefully not for too long. I think this would be a percfect place
> to display some _useful_ information.
>
> Stroller.
>
> On May 26, 2004, at 1:58 pm, Chuck Short wrote:
> > Whats confusing about it?
> >
> >> If people don't have a clue about virtual hosting, would it not be
> >> better for the default Apache start page to document the correct
> >> configuration & directory hierarchy layout for the version of Apache
> >> that they have emerged. I for one have found the changes made to
> >> Apache
> >> in recent months confusing, and don't know where to find documentation
> >> on the correct way to set up my webserver under Gentoo.
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 707 bytes --]

> We are thinking of changing the layout of the apache start page
> for the apache ebuilds. The current idea can be found:
> 
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~zul/apache/
> 
> If you have any comments to make. Please feel free to do so.

I like the new page, but we've always prided ourselves on the fact that
we provide our packages pretty much the way the package developers
intended.  I would not object to a USE flag that allowed a user to
"opt-in" to get Gentoo branding, but I don't think it should be the
default.

Best,
g2boojum
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Jon Hood]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 776 bytes --]

I do like the branding and the general layout. For those complaining of
the "welcome to Gentoo" banner at the top, I think "Gentoo" would be the
computer's nickname. Like, if my laptop's named Meg, it would say,
"Welcome to Meg." Not sure on that, but that's the idea I got from it.

As for the layout, the "Seeing this instead of the website you
expected?" box should be above the search boxes. Also, the Apache logo
should appear beside the Gentoo 'g' logo. "google general search" I
think should just be "google search" and moved to the beginning or end
of the input boxes. Those are just optional things I'd prefer, but
overall it looks very good and I like it.

-Jon

-- 
AIM: Squinky01
Yahoo!: Squinky86
ICQ: 160940989
Jabber: squinky86@im.gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 930 bytes --]

On Monday 24 May 2004 22:07, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> I like the new page, but we've always prided ourselves on the fact that
> we provide our packages pretty much the way the package developers
> intended.  

I think Apache's worth making a special case out of.  Our user-base is 
changing, and is becoming less experienced than the early adopters.  
Providing an initial homepage that points them at useful documentation (that 
they may not even realise is available to them) would help these new users 
find their feet.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                              stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                                       http://www.gentoo.org/
                                                   http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/

GnuPG key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[FRLinux]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 659 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 20:46, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I think Apache's worth making a special case out of.  Our user-base is 
> changing, and is becoming less experienced than the early adopters.  
> Providing an initial homepage that points them at useful documentation (that 
> they may not even realise is available to them) would help these new users 
> find their feet.

Seing the kind of questions you can find on IRC, i completely second
that.

Steph
-- 
This mail was sent under Gentoo 2004.1 - Gnome & Kernel 2.6nptl
http://frlinux.net - Site d'aide aux Debutants sous Linux
Public key : http://frlinux.net/files/frlinux_public_key.asc

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1846 bytes --]

> > I like the new page, but we've always prided ourselves on the fact that
> > we provide our packages pretty much the way the package developers
> > intended.  
> 
> I think Apache's worth making a special case out of.  Our user-base is 
> changing, and is becoming less experienced than the early adopters.  
> Providing an initial homepage that points them at useful documentation (that 
> they may not even realise is available to them) would help these new users 
> find their feet.

I just wanted to comment that this thread has generated a lot of "heat",
including some quite vitriolic comments.  I don't necessarily agree with
Stuart's comment (I like the default Apache page because when somebody
experienced sees it that person instantly knows what it is), but I very
much respect his opinion.  Some of the comments seem to be missing that
element of respect that I think both our users and our developers are
entitled to receive.  Moreover, I'm not the apache maintainer (thank
goodness), so when i voiced my opinion I expected nothing else except
that it would be listened to, judged on its merits (or lack thereof),
and either accepted or rejected, which seems to be exactly what has
happened with the people who _are_ apache maintainers.  As I mentioned,
I don't agree w/ the branding decision here, but I'm perfectly willing
to accept that I might well be wrong, and even if I weren't, I'm still
outvoted.  In a community-based distribution it's probably not a good
idea to fight for your ideas to the death.  If ninety-plus percent of
people disagree with you, you might just want to let it go.

My unasked-for two cents or so,
g2boojum
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 739 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 16:07, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> I don't agree w/ the branding decision here, but I'm perfectly willing
> to accept that I might well be wrong, and even if I weren't, I'm still
> outvoted.  In a community-based distribution it's probably not a good
> idea to fight for your ideas to the death.  If ninety-plus percent of
> people disagree with you, you might just want to let it go.

That little part right there has to be one of the best comments about
the way things are in Gentoo that I have read in a long time.  Thanks,
Grant.  Maybe we should get together sometime and I'll buy you a beer or
two.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer
Games/LiveCD Teams
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC - apache start page.

[Carsten Lohrke]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 26 May 2004 03:17, Chuck Short wrote:
> We are thinking of changing the layout of the apache start page
> for the apache ebuilds. The current idea can be found:

A few reasons not to do this:

1. branding is contentious (i for one really don't care)
2. are webapp config/eclass stuff and affected ebuilds ready?
3. overhaul gentoo.org and link it (or add a static subset of the site as an 
ebuild, if you want to have it available without net access), instead 
starting another thing
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAs7yBVwbzmvGLSW8RAi+aAJ9oaam+VO0b/Bgp/VhTuaDlNkwAWQCgqMeM
rqRmaiq90GPHhB5UvX+WuRE=
=w0Z2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list