[gentoo-portage-dev] webapp-config and webapps

[Wendall Cada <wendallc@torusmultimedia.com>]

Hello,

I've been using Gentoo on a couple production servers since January of
this year. I have been very happy with Gentoo on the server and it has
been very easy to administer and update until the introduction of
webapp-config and its related tools, file structures, etc.

I understand that the Gentoo web-apps are trying to conform more with
Linux standards. For instance, the move from /home to /var for the web
root. Many configuration file moves, etc, etc. Many of these have been
documented and discussed before hand. Recently however, I don't feel
this has been the case and tools like webapp-config have broken the use
of portage as a package maintainer and reduced it to a download utility.

Here is an example of why:

In the past if you wanted a web application, you could look through the
portage database of apps and do an:

emerge mywebapp
mywebapp is now installed and ready for use in
/var/www/localhost/htdocs/mywebapp
read configuration docs
configure apache
then use mywebapp

Now there is a similar install process.
emerge mywebapp
mywebapp is installed in
/usr/share/webapps/mywebapp/mywebappversion/htdocs/
webapp-config -I -d /var/www/localhost/htdocs/mywebapp
read configuration docs
use webapp-config to configure apache
then use mywebapp

Now the theory behind web-app config is good in that the author/authors
wanted to give the ability to let me use it on multiple sites from a
single install, manage virtual sites, etc. Forcing me to use something
to do installations outside of portage is a bad idea. Creating a
millions symlinks and/or hardlinks throughout my filesystem is a
horrible thing.

First, what if I want the ability to use portage to update and manage my
web-app, just like the other packages on my system? I can't unless I
write my own ebuilds to use portage for installing web-apps.  If I have
a need for web-app config, let me make that choice. Please don't make
the choice for me. How long before someone comes along and decides my
Gnome desktop needs to be managed and installed with its own installer.
You guys may think that is ridiculous, but if someone would have told me
that portage would only be used for downloading web-apps last year, I
would have thought they were crazy. I don't or won't use the thing,
because it is not useful to me. Not for my desktop or on my server. I
have management tools I choose to use that suit my needs much better.
Also, many of the web-apps I use have virtual site capabilities built
in, and I prefer using the built-in tools they provide.

Many will argue that portage still does the updating, I disagree. If I
update mywebapp from version 1.1 to 1.2, the original install is deleted
from /usr/share/webapps/mywebapp/1.1/ and a new directory is created
/usr/share/webapps/mywebapp/1.2/ This isn't really updating the app.
Just deletes the old one and puts the new one in a different directory.
No different than if I just download the tarball and untar it myself.
Using the old portage method, I would have protected config files and
directories and the new files would be installed in the same directory
as the old one. I run the upgrade script for that particular app if
necessary and I'm up and running. The old method would be great in
conjunct use with webapp-config, but what if I don't want to use
webapp-config? It is rendered worthless to me without alot of advanced
scripting that is really unnecessary had webapp-config been left as an
optional tool.

If web-app config was a tool for me to use at my discretion, great. But
a tool that replaces the functionality of portage? That sucks no matter
how I look at it.

I have, as do other Gentoo web-app developers that I'll leave unnamed
many ideas about how this could be done better. My input is pointless if
webapp-config is the way things are going to be done. It really negates
the usefulness of many other tools.  Was a roadmap created? Was anybody
who uses this stuff asked? Was it mentioned that portage would just
manage the downloading from here on out? Why weren't these features if
necessary made a part of portage?

Portage is a great tool for managing applications. I'd like to use it
for my entire Gentoo system.

Wendall
-- 
"Only the ideas that we really live have any value." --Hermann Hesse
(Demian)


--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list