Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Web Application Installation

[Stuart Herbert <stuart@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3692 bytes --]

Hi Max,

Looks like we're almost there, doesn't it? ;-)

On Tuesday 05 August 2003 4:04 am, Max Kalika wrote:
> >> The most robust solution would be to create a new group (web?) and make
> >> all the webserver users be a part of that group and make these directory
> >> group-owned by said group.  (Similar to the "mail" group for many
> >> mail-related services)
> >
> > Why is that robust?
>
> Because we have the one group that we know all webservers are going to run
> as (yes yes, the sysadmin can change what group the server runs as, and if
> he/she does, then he/she can also change the ownership of the directory).
> If we assume that all webservers will run as the same group, then
> configuring those apps which need a writeable directory becomes easy
> indeed.

We'd need to get Donnie on board to make this happen.

I'd just assumed that the webapp-config toolset would automagically take care 
of this for us (see my earlier post about what assumptions are ;-)

> > (thinks about this)  I'd want to test it to be sure, but I think ${PF}
> > would  work out okay.  Depends whether having the -rX part of the package
> > name is  really important or not.
>
> I'd say it is important because -rX releases may have added
> functionality/features that some may not want, etc.

Then let's ask Tad to put ${PF} into the GLEP.

> >> Otherwise, this seems ok to me and is easy to implement in the eclass.
> >
> > Good-o.  So the two of us (ominously quiet in here ;-) are in agreement
> > then?   Oh, thought it was too good to be true ;-)
>
> It could happen!

Lots of laughter.

> > Shrugs.  I just picked 'public_html' because it's a recognised convention
> > (although not the only one I'm sure).  'public' is too generic for my
> > liking.   'cgi-bin' *is* a recognised convention, and one we shouldn't
> > break.
>
> I thought those were apache conventions.  It really doesn't matter one way
> or another. :-)

Let's stick with 'public_html' and 'cgi-bin' then.

> checking...still checking...done!  It could probably be simplified to
> something like the following: (I'm just the nitpick mongrel, aren't I?)
>
> if [ "`has_version '=net-www/apache-2*'`" -a "`use apache2`" ] ; then
> 	APACHEVER=2
> elif [ "`has_version '=net-www/apache-1*'`" ] ; then
> 	APACHEVER=1
> else
> 	# no apache version detected
> 	return 1
> fi

According to the description in profiles/use.desc ...

	"apache2 - Chooses Apache2 support when a package supports both Apache1
	 and Apache2"

With your version, if the user has Apache2 support, but doesn't have 'apache2' 
in the USE flags, no apache version will be detected.  That doesn't seem to 
match the description in profiles/use.desc.

> No offense taken of course.  Lets just evolve yours overtime to do
> everything that's needed because, as you say, it is already in portage. :-)

Tbh, I wouldn't be surprised (or upset - I'm not the possessive type) if the 
eclass I've added to portage has to go when we implement this GLEP.

Last night on IRC, I offered to TaD to code up a new eclass to provide a 
demonstration implementation of that part of the GLEP.  Very earliest I could 
do this would be sometime next week, as I'm away for a long weekend from 
Thursday.

Take care,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                              stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                                       http://www.gentoo.org/
Beta packages for download            http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/packages/

GnuGP 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 --]