[gentoo-dev] net-www Being Retired

[gentoo-dev] net-www Being Retired

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1070 bytes --]

(Kurt - can you put this on www.g.o plz? thanks)

Hi,

Week starting 2nd August 2004, we will be moving *all* of the packages 
currently in net-www to new homes in the Portage tree.  net-www has outgrown 
its original purpose, and the new categories that we are adding will make it 
much easier for users to find the packages they want.

The full list of packages are here:

	http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/www-split.txt

WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO:

Portage will automatically upgrade any packages you have installed the next 
time you run emerge -u.  However, you will manually need to fix any entries 
in /etc/portage/package.* to refer to the new categories.

Many thanks,
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] net-www Being Retired

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 980 bytes --]

maillog: 19/07/2004-14:06:25(+0100): Stuart Herbert types
> (Kurt - can you put this on www.g.o plz? thanks)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Week starting 2nd August 2004, we will be moving *all* of the packages 
> currently in net-www to new homes in the Portage tree.  net-www has outgrown 
> its original purpose, and the new categories that we are adding will make it 
> much easier for users to find the packages they want.
> 
> The full list of packages are here:
> 
> 	http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/www-split.txt

I guess this is the oportune moment to address
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15079

I mean, prozilla is as much a www-client as wget or d4x are.

-- 
 )   Georgi Georgiev    ) [Crash programs] fail because they are        )
(     chutz@gg3.net    (  based on the theory that, with nine women    (
 )  +81(90)6266-1163    ) pregnant, you can get a baby a month. --      )
(  ------------------- (  Wernher von Braun                            (

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www Being Retired

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 713 bytes --]

On Monday 19 July 2004 14:32, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> I guess this is the oportune moment to address
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15079
>
> I mean, prozilla is as much a www-client as wget or d4x are.

Ah - I missed this bug.  I've updated the list to show that prozilla is now 
going into net-misc.

Thanks,
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] net-www Being Retired

[Sergey Borodich]

Hello, Stuart Herbert !  On 07/19/2004 04:06 PM you wrote
> (Kurt - can you put this on www.g.o plz? thanks)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Week starting 2nd August 2004, we will be moving *all* of the packages 
> currently in net-www to new homes in the Portage tree.  net-www has outgrown 
> its original purpose, and the new categories that we are adding will make it 
> much easier for users to find the packages they want.
> 
> The full list of packages are here:
> 
> 	http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/www-split.txt
> 
> WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO:
> 
> Portage will automatically upgrade any packages you have installed the next 
> time you run emerge -u.  However, you will manually need to fix any entries 
> in /etc/portage/package.* to refer to the new categories.
> 

I think mozplugger and netscape-plugger must be in www-plugin

-- 
Sergey Borodich
http://bor.org.ua

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www Being Retired

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 575 bytes --]

On Monday 19 July 2004 17:56, Sergey Borodich wrote:
> I think mozplugger and netscape-plugger must be in www-plugin

Thanks.  I've updated the list to include this change.

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] net-www Being Retired

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1380 bytes --]

On Monday 19 July 2004 14:06, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Week starting 2nd August 2004, we will be moving *all* of the packages
> currently in net-www to new homes in the Portage tree.  net-www has
> outgrown its original purpose, and the new categories that we are adding
> will make it much easier for users to find the packages they want.

I'll shortly be starting work on moving apache-related packages.

To make life easier for everyone - at the expense of a one-off bit of pain - 
I'm thinking of splitting the apache packages into TWO categories:

  - www-apache1 for apache1 packages
  - www-apache2 for apache2 packages

This will be a giant leap towards getting rid of the apache USE flag pain, and 
the associated noise / bugs that result from this.

The main downside with this proposal is that I haven't figured out an 
automatic way for users to upgrade to the correct apache1/apache2 packages 
after the split.  Any ideas would be welcome.

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: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www Being Retired

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 936 bytes --]

On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 12:48, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I'll shortly be starting work on moving apache-related packages.
> 
> To make life easier for everyone - at the expense of a one-off bit of pain - 
> I'm thinking of splitting the apache packages into TWO categories:
> 
>   - www-apache1 for apache1 packages
>   - www-apache2 for apache2 packages
> 
> This will be a giant leap towards getting rid of the apache USE flag pain, and 
> the associated noise / bugs that result from this.

If there's a way to get portage to work better without this kind of
splitting, I'd much rather see that happen. Perhaps SLOTting by what
it's built for (apache-1/2)? I'm not real clear on the current
situation.

Splitting in this way really goes against the whole idea of portage
allowing us to integrate versioned packages into one using a combination
of USE flags, SLOTs and other tools.
-- 
Donnie Berkholz
Gentoo Linux

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www Being Retired

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1252 bytes --]

On Wednesday 15 September 2004 21:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> If there's a way to get portage to work better without this kind of
> splitting, I'd much rather see that happen. Perhaps SLOTting by what
> it's built for (apache-1/2)? I'm not real clear on the current
> situation.

SLOTing is great when (say) verison 1.2 of a package works with both apache 
and apache2, but it's not a complete solution when you need version 1.2 for 
apache, but version 2.2 for apache2.

We can tell users to use /etc/portage/package.mask, but I want to get this 
stuff working automatically, without the user having to do anything.

> Splitting in this way really goes against the whole idea of portage
> allowing us to integrate versioned packages into one using a combination
> of USE flags, SLOTs and other tools.

I'm open to better suggestions.

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: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www Being Retired

[Doug Goldstein]

I'm actually the maintainer of a couple of Apache modules (currently not 
included in Portage but shortly I'll look to include them when I 
stablize them a bit more) that I have the codebase support both Apache 1 
and Apache 2 through a mess of #DEFINE and ./configure but I did that to 
make it easier for users. With this scheme the package would have to 
appear in two catagories under the same name and it would conflict with 
the other one and provide an ugly mess. Heck.... every package... like 
emerge mod_perl wouldn't even work.. it'd give you an ugly message 
saying which one? www-apache1/mod-perl or www-apache2/mod-perl... Not 
ideal in my book. There's got to be a better way about this.

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 September 2004 21:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 
>>If there's a way to get portage to work better without this kind of
>>splitting, I'd much rather see that happen. Perhaps SLOTting by what
>>it's built for (apache-1/2)? I'm not real clear on the current
>>situation.
> 
> 
> SLOTing is great when (say) verison 1.2 of a package works with both apache 
> and apache2, but it's not a complete solution when you need version 1.2 for 
> apache, but version 2.2 for apache2.
> 
> We can tell users to use /etc/portage/package.mask, but I want to get this 
> stuff working automatically, without the user having to do anything.
> 
> 
>>Splitting in this way really goes against the whole idea of portage
>>allowing us to integrate versioned packages into one using a combination
>>of USE flags, SLOTs and other tools.
> 
> 
> I'm open to better suggestions.
> 
> Best regards,
> Stu


-- 
Doug Goldstein
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x179106D0
Key fingerprint = 7001 5FBF BACE 9E66 3A1C  55E0 161C FF5C 1791 06D0


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www Being Retired

[Allen Parker]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:48:53 -0400, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'm actually the maintainer of a couple of Apache modules (currently not
> included in Portage but shortly I'll look to include them when I
> stablize them a bit more) that I have the codebase support both Apache 1
> and Apache 2 through a mess of #DEFINE and ./configure but I did that to
> make it easier for users. With this scheme the package would have to
> appear in two catagories under the same name and it would conflict with
> the other one and provide an ugly mess. Heck.... every package... like
> emerge mod_perl wouldn't even work.. it'd give you an ugly message
> saying which one? www-apache1/mod-perl or www-apache2/mod-perl... Not
> ideal in my book. There's got to be a better way about this.

Don't mean to nitpick, but mod_perl is actually dev-perl/mod_perl and
unless you're going KEYWORDS="~arch", isn't happy with apache2 ;-) on
a standard x86 box (if you're on amd64 or alpha, it's not masked)
either way, if you're brave you've got a choice:

[root$box]::mod_perl> emerge -upv mod_perl

These are the packages that I would merge, in order:

Calculating dependencies ...done!
[ebuild  N    ] dev-perl/libnet-1.16   68 kB
[ebuild  N    ] dev-perl/Crypt-SSLeay-0.49   114 kB
[ebuild  N    ] dev-perl/libwww-perl-5.79  +ssl  219 kB
[ebuild  N    ] sys-libs/db-4.0.14-r3  +doc -java -tcltk  2,638 kB
[ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/mm-1.2.1   211 kB
[ebuild  N    ] net-www/apache-1.3.31-r3  +pam  3,146 kB
[ebuild  N    ] dev-perl/mod_perl-1.27-r4  +ipv6  363 kB

Total size of downloads: 6,762 kB

Now that that's out of the way...
DEPEND=" apache? ( www-apache1/apache )
apache2? ( www-apache2/apache )"
farther on down the ebuild:
if use apache; then
einfo "Building for Apache v1.x"
myconf="${myconf} --build-for-apache1"
fi

I hope you get the point. This isn't as much of a disaster as you're
thinking it is. If you don't need to be put in either catagory,
perhaps a 3rd that is a little more generic for things that don't fit
anywhere else? apache-common?

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www Being Retired

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1841 bytes --]

Hi Doug,

On Wednesday 15 September 2004 21:48, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> I'm actually the maintainer of a couple of Apache modules (currently not
> included in Portage but shortly I'll look to include them when I
> stablize them a bit more) that I have the codebase support both Apache 1
> and Apache 2 through a mess of #DEFINE and ./configure but I did that to
> make it easier for users. 

Please make sure you add yourself to the apache herd when you commit these 
modules, and that you list yourself as primary maintainer in the 
metadata.xml.

> With this scheme the package would have to 
> appear in two catagories under the same name and it would conflict with
> the other one and provide an ugly mess. 

Yes, the package would have to appear in two categories.  The common parts of 
the ebuild can be moved into an eclass.  I'm not sure what conflict you think 
will arise.  All mods that support both apache1 and apache2 should install 
into SLOT=1 for apache1 and SLOT=2 for apache2.

> Heck.... every package... like 
> emerge mod_perl wouldn't even work.. it'd give you an ugly message
> saying which one? www-apache1/mod-perl or www-apache2/mod-perl... Not
> ideal in my book. There's got to be a better way about this.

You'd only get that message if you typed 'emerge mod_perl'.  If you typed 
'emerge www-apache1/mod_perl', then you wouldn't get the message.

As I say, I'm open to suggestions.

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: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www Being Retired

[Jason Rhinelander]

Stuart Herbert wrote:
>>Heck.... every package... like 
>>emerge mod_perl wouldn't even work.. it'd give you an ugly message
>>saying which one? www-apache1/mod-perl or www-apache2/mod-perl... Not
>>ideal in my book. There's got to be a better way about this.
> 
> 
> You'd only get that message if you typed 'emerge mod_perl'.  If you typed 
> 'emerge www-apache1/mod_perl', then you wouldn't get the message.

True, but how many people "emerge cat/package" vs. just "emerge package"?

-- Jason Rhinelander
-- Gossamer Threads, Inc.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www Being Retired

[Michael Tindal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 750 bytes --]

On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 17:02 -0700, Jason Rhinelander wrote:
> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > You'd only get that message if you typed 'emerge mod_perl'.  If you typed 
> > 'emerge www-apache1/mod_perl', then you wouldn't get the message.
> 
> True, but how many people "emerge cat/package" vs. just "emerge package"?

Going off of the mod_perl example, if a user types "emerge mod_perl",
portage tells them its ambiguous, then they have to retype "emerge www-
apache1/mod_perl", thats more time they have to spend to install the
package.  The more productivity we can give the better, we shouldn't
take the easy route out just because it saves us some work.  Personally
I'm in favor of something like apache/apache2 USE flags.

Mike Tindal

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www Being Retired

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1071 bytes --]

On Thursday 16 September 2004 00:30, Stuart Herbert wrote:

> Yes, the package would have to appear in two categories.  The common
> parts of the ebuild can be moved into an eclass.  I'm not sure what
> conflict you think will arise.  All mods that support both apache1 and
> apache2 should install into SLOT=1 for apache1 and SLOT=2 for apache2.

I have to agree with Doug, it is not clean at all. I really would like to 
see some better solution than this cludge.

>
> > Heck.... every package... like
> > emerge mod_perl wouldn't even work.. it'd give you an ugly message
> > saying which one? www-apache1/mod-perl or www-apache2/mod-perl... Not
> > ideal in my book. There's got to be a better way about this.
>
> You'd only get that message if you typed 'emerge mod_perl'.  If you
> typed 'emerge www-apache1/mod_perl', then you wouldn't get the message.
>
> As I say, I'm open to suggestions.

Here indeed is a limitation in portage.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www Being Retired

[Michiel de Bruijne]

On Wednesday 15 September 2004 22:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 12:48, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > I'll shortly be starting work on moving apache-related packages.
> >
> > To make life easier for everyone - at the expense of a one-off bit of
> > pain - I'm thinking of splitting the apache packages into TWO categories:
> >
> >   - www-apache1 for apache1 packages
> >   - www-apache2 for apache2 packages
> >
> > This will be a giant leap towards getting rid of the apache USE flag
> > pain, and the associated noise / bugs that result from this.
>
> If there's a way to get portage to work better without this kind of
> splitting, I'd much rather see that happen. Perhaps SLOTting by what
> it's built for (apache-1/2)? I'm not real clear on the current
> situation.
>
> Splitting in this way really goes against the whole idea of portage
> allowing us to integrate versioned packages into one using a combination
> of USE flags, SLOTs and other tools.

As far as I know it started with kernelheaders, but now more and more packages 
(want to) include a versionnummer in the name or give the package an other 
name (e.g. gentoo-sources v.s. gentoo-dev-sources). I think this can be 
solved by adding the possibillity to portage to check for required SLOT (and 
USE) in the (R)DEPEND-function. Do you think this is the right approach?

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list