From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5159 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2004 20:56:12 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 28 Oct 2004 20:56:12 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CNHJb-0006Yf-SR for arch-gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:56:11 +0000 Received: (qmail 3352 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2004 20:56:09 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-portage-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 17911 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2004 20:56:08 +0000 From: Wendall Cada To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1098995650.9085.118.camel@www.toruslaptop.com> References: <1098993757.9091.107.camel@www.toruslaptop.com> <200410282220.10011.pauldv@gentoo.org> <1098995650.9085.118.camel@www.toruslaptop.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1098996955.9085.127.camel@www.toruslaptop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:55:55 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] webapp-config and webapps X-Archives-Salt: 48d180dd-c775-47e4-83d7-5dc2ebd0f648 X-Archives-Hash: 5fcc708717640b9284b6bfaf8cb6f129 Ok, I may have jumped the gun a bit. I gave read all the documents at this point and read all the same bitches in the forums. I see reference to -vhost which is in theory the default. Maybe on an new install. Not on my existing installs. When the switch way made, it was done poorly. Previous implementations should have been honored. Instead, it appeared as though a user was forced to use webapp-config. Which I still believe is the case for the most part. I can adjust to the new stuff, but I think it needs some serious consideration from the portage devs as it breaks the use of portage. If this is the way of the future, I guess I'm stuck. Else, please consider moving back to making non-structural changes be handled by portage. Wendall On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 13:34, Wendall Cada wrote: > > The system should work in a way that such a separate install set is only > > necessary when virtual host support is enabled. (In which case it makes > > sense). If you have your system set up for single host webserving it is a bug > > if things are not installed automatically. > > > > Paul > > I use a virual hosting environment, and do not want to use or enable > webapp-config. I also don't think that it is a good criteria to base the > use of the tool from. I have not found a way to disable it. As soon as > all webapps were converted over to it, I have had to use it or nothing. > I think it should be setup by the user if they need the functionality > and left out by default if not. Let portage do the job it was designed > for and toolkits to do the jobs they were designed for. > > Wendall -- "Only the ideas that we really live have any value." --Hermann Hesse (Demian) -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list