[gentoo-soc] [GSoC] WaCfg weekly report

[gentoo-soc] [GSoC] WaCfg weekly report

[Andreas Nüßlein]

Hi all!

As you all know the deadline is approaching, and wacfg has reached a
good status.

One design-issue is still not resolved and I would like your opinion:
Wacfg-Configfiles are python-files - the syntax is pretty similar to distutils.
Should I use a new file extension for these files (like .wacfg) or
should I keep .py?
Ebuilds are essentially Shell-files, but this way it's easy for e.g.
vim to automatically create nice highlighting etc.

I like the idea of a new file extension, however I feel that maybe
just because of
(at most) a few hundred files, creating a new extension might be overkill.
What do you think? Please vote here: http://micropoll.com/t/KEbJrZBLj1


Lately I implemented:
- listing of currently installed webapps (in /var/www)
- global upgrade all of these instances with one command, while
keeping manual changes intact: "wacfg upgradeall"
- removing ("wacfg remove") of an installed instance was still kinda
buggy and it should work well now.
- the wacfg ebuild is working (I forgot to install the bin at first)


Roadmap:
  v1.0 (gsoc deadline):
  - obviously a bunch of documentation
  - ebuilds for many of the webapps (all in one layman-overlay)
  - implement the old "--show-postinst, --spi" ("Show the
post-installation instructions for <application>.")
  - ...i believe i'm forgetting something but i currently can't remember

  v2.0 (post-gsoc):
  - the way wacfg currently assembles the list of installed webapps is
via "find" in /var/www.
     a global database would be nice and I will look into that.
  - once enough ebuilds have been ported, I will try to get wacfg into
mainline portage to replace webapp-config.



have a great week everybody

andy