From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10702 invoked by uid 1002); 5 Aug 2003 10:41:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 23218 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2003 10:41:58 -0000 From: Stuart Herbert Reply-To: stuart@gentoo.org To: Max Kalika , Troy Dack , gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:39:53 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <86960000.1060038977@valkyrie.lsit.ucsb.edu> <200308050114.29952.stuart@gentoo.org> <2147483647.1060027476@[192.168.26.4]> In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1060027476@[192.168.26.4]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_5l4L/wpYHNzC1vK"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200308051139.53699.stuart@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Web Application Installation X-Archives-Salt: 501f72f0-b44c-45a2-9b4e-78dcddb3611c X-Archives-Hash: 7b0ee00df9ce3819ac93e4339275f874 --Boundary-02=_5l4L/wpYHNzC1vK Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline 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 directo= ry > >> 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 ca= re=20 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 packa= ge > > 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 conventi= on > > (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 '=3Dnet-www/apache-2*'`" -a "`use apache2`" ] ; then > APACHEVER=3D2 > elif [ "`has_version '=3Dnet-www/apache-1*'`" ] ; then > APACHEVER=3D1 > 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 'apach= e2'=20 in the USE flags, no apache version will be detected. That doesn't seem to= =20 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. := =2D) Tbh, I wouldn't be surprised (or upset - I'm not the possessive type) if th= e=20 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=20 demonstration implementation of that part of the GLEP. Very earliest I cou= ld=20 do this would be sometime next week, as I'm away for a long weekend from=20 Thursday. Take care, Stu =2D-=20 Stuart Herbert stuart@gentoo.o= rg Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.or= g/ Beta packages for download http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/package= s/ GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu Key fingerprint =3D 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C =2D- --Boundary-02=_5l4L/wpYHNzC1vK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/L4l5DC+AuvmvxXwRAhU4AJ4pcMlqOaYz5SuMp1kmw2m1pg4PfQCeLGfV Vj4xeOKqg1ZKxRnw6VdYGwA= =+syd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_5l4L/wpYHNzC1vK--