[gentoo-dev] webapp-config needs a new maintainer

[gentoo-dev] webapp-config needs a new maintainer

[Sebastian Pipping]

Hello!


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.
Its upstream Gunnar left Gentoo due to lack of time recently.

As I got project admin rights for layman from Gunnar before I know that
a similar thing should be theoretical possible for you and
webapp-config, too.


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

http://sourceforge.net/projects/webapp-config/files/
https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=webapp-config

I know there's people using this tool.  If you use it this is your
chance to ensure it keeps in good shape.  Being proxied or mentored
initially should also work in case you want that.

Thanks,



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] webapp-config needs a new maintainer

[Patrick Nagel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1878 bytes --]

Hi,

On 2010-03-10 11:30, Sebastian Pipping 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.
> Its upstream Gunnar left Gentoo due to lack of time recently.
> 
> As I got project admin rights for layman from Gunnar before I know that
> a similar thing should be theoretical possible for you and
> webapp-config, too.
> 
> 
> So your first task would be a proper bump and a maybe few bug fixes after:
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/webapp-config/files/
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=webapp-config
> 
> I know there's people using this tool.  If you use it this is your
> chance to ensure it keeps in good shape.  Being proxied or mentored
> initially should also work in case you want that.

I'm using webapp-config on multiple servers, and I think it's an
important part of Gentoo, as it provides a sane way to keep track of web
applications.

I see a problem though: the ebuilds of popular webapps like MediaWiki or
Wordpress seem to be in bad shape / unmaintained, which in term makes
this tool much less useful. Maybe that is caused by the fact, that
webapp-config has bugs? Chicken/Egg problem?
So, I wish there could be more people taking care of timely version
bumps etc. for webapps, since it is essential that webapps are always
kept up-to-date, most of them being written in PHP, buggy, exposed to
the net and all.

Anyway, I can imagine working on webapp-config, and becoming a Gentoo
package maintainer. My time is a little limited though (day job + part
time job + family), so don't expect too much. If there is someone with
more time on his/her hands, please go for it.

Patrick.

-- 
Key ID: 0x86E346D4            http://patrick-nagel.net/key.asc
Fingerprint: 7745 E1BE FA8B FBAD 76AB 2BFC C981 E686 86E3 46D4


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 259 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] webapp-config needs a new maintainer

[Benedikt Böhm]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] webapp-config needs a new maintainer

[Maciej Mrozowski]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] webapp-config needs a new maintainer

[Benedikt Böhm]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] webapp-config needs a new maintainer

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 828 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]