| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 9/20/06, Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> As long as we have no package sets support in portage, I do indeed think |
| 7 |
>> that this is the best way to go. Didn't realize that you mentioned it, |
| 8 |
>> too. |
| 9 |
>> @Stuart: What do you think? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Right now, I'm not too concerned about the lack of package set |
| 12 |
> support. That might change down the road, after we've lived with it |
| 13 |
> for awhile. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> One of the things we're going to trial is supporting USE flags in the |
| 16 |
> seeds themselves. We'll try out having the |
| 17 |
> seeds/lamp-server/release-1 profile (or whatever it ends up being |
| 18 |
> called) setting a suitable set of USE flags to support a LAMP |
| 19 |
> environment that includes Apache, PHP4&5, Perl, Python, and Rails. |
| 20 |
> The seeds-base/lamp-server package itself will rely on USE flags to |
| 21 |
> switch on all those options. If anyone wants to build the seed from |
| 22 |
> source locally, they'll be able to change the USE flags (for example) |
| 23 |
> to build a LAMP Server that's dedicated to just Rails, or just Python. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> We think that'll make the LAMP Server seed more useful to our users in |
| 26 |
> practice. The folks who want a quick stage4 tarball to seed a box - |
| 27 |
> they'll get the whole nine yards. But folks who want to customise |
| 28 |
> things (by compiling from source, probably using a stage3 tarball and |
| 29 |
> the standard minimal install CD) - they're catered for too. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> That's why - atm - we don't want to just lump everything into a |
| 32 |
> profile, or just into a catalyst spec file. Maybe one of those will |
| 33 |
> turn out to be the right way to go, but we'd like to explore this |
| 34 |
> approach first, and see how things turn out. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Best regards, |
| 37 |
> Stu |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Seems like a catalyst specfile would be a nice complement to an existing stage4 |
| 40 |
tarball, when possible. That way you can get your immediate canned install |
| 41 |
pleasure, while having something to build on for future needs, or if (say) you |
| 42 |
have a specialized situation that you need to further tweak for (say) several |
| 43 |
clients without having to do extensive work installing/tweaking the original stage4. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
I like the suggestions so far, though I don't think a metapackage is really |
| 46 |
necessary -- the issue here seems to be fresh installations, not emerging a |
| 47 |
package set (or similar) to magically turn one's existing Gentoo box into a LAMP |
| 48 |
server. |
| 49 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 50 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
iD8DBQFFEajErsJQqN81j74RAl0SAJ4zOplRIrRAzPxds/mxUAZW+O0mugCfdV1w |
| 53 |
wekm0ZBPXkRAFFN+276F9GU= |
| 54 |
=0yUS |
| 55 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives