1 |
Hello, |
2 |
|
3 |
I've been using Gentoo on a couple production servers since January of |
4 |
this year. I have been very happy with Gentoo on the server and it has |
5 |
been very easy to administer and update until the introduction of |
6 |
webapp-config and its related tools, file structures, etc. |
7 |
|
8 |
I understand that the Gentoo web-apps are trying to conform more with |
9 |
Linux standards. For instance, the move from /home to /var for the web |
10 |
root. Many configuration file moves, etc, etc. Many of these have been |
11 |
documented and discussed before hand. Recently however, I don't feel |
12 |
this has been the case and tools like webapp-config have broken the use |
13 |
of portage as a package maintainer and reduced it to a download utility. |
14 |
|
15 |
Here is an example of why: |
16 |
|
17 |
In the past if you wanted a web application, you could look through the |
18 |
portage database of apps and do an: |
19 |
|
20 |
emerge mywebapp |
21 |
mywebapp is now installed and ready for use in |
22 |
/var/www/localhost/htdocs/mywebapp |
23 |
read configuration docs |
24 |
configure apache |
25 |
then use mywebapp |
26 |
|
27 |
Now there is a similar install process. |
28 |
emerge mywebapp |
29 |
mywebapp is installed in |
30 |
/usr/share/webapps/mywebapp/mywebappversion/htdocs/ |
31 |
webapp-config -I -d /var/www/localhost/htdocs/mywebapp |
32 |
read configuration docs |
33 |
use webapp-config to configure apache |
34 |
then use mywebapp |
35 |
|
36 |
Now the theory behind web-app config is good in that the author/authors |
37 |
wanted to give the ability to let me use it on multiple sites from a |
38 |
single install, manage virtual sites, etc. Forcing me to use something |
39 |
to do installations outside of portage is a bad idea. Creating a |
40 |
millions symlinks and/or hardlinks throughout my filesystem is a |
41 |
horrible thing. |
42 |
|
43 |
First, what if I want the ability to use portage to update and manage my |
44 |
web-app, just like the other packages on my system? I can't unless I |
45 |
write my own ebuilds to use portage for installing web-apps. If I have |
46 |
a need for web-app config, let me make that choice. Please don't make |
47 |
the choice for me. How long before someone comes along and decides my |
48 |
Gnome desktop needs to be managed and installed with its own installer. |
49 |
You guys may think that is ridiculous, but if someone would have told me |
50 |
that portage would only be used for downloading web-apps last year, I |
51 |
would have thought they were crazy. I don't or won't use the thing, |
52 |
because it is not useful to me. Not for my desktop or on my server. I |
53 |
have management tools I choose to use that suit my needs much better. |
54 |
Also, many of the web-apps I use have virtual site capabilities built |
55 |
in, and I prefer using the built-in tools they provide. |
56 |
|
57 |
Many will argue that portage still does the updating, I disagree. If I |
58 |
update mywebapp from version 1.1 to 1.2, the original install is deleted |
59 |
from /usr/share/webapps/mywebapp/1.1/ and a new directory is created |
60 |
/usr/share/webapps/mywebapp/1.2/ This isn't really updating the app. |
61 |
Just deletes the old one and puts the new one in a different directory. |
62 |
No different than if I just download the tarball and untar it myself. |
63 |
Using the old portage method, I would have protected config files and |
64 |
directories and the new files would be installed in the same directory |
65 |
as the old one. I run the upgrade script for that particular app if |
66 |
necessary and I'm up and running. The old method would be great in |
67 |
conjunct use with webapp-config, but what if I don't want to use |
68 |
webapp-config? It is rendered worthless to me without alot of advanced |
69 |
scripting that is really unnecessary had webapp-config been left as an |
70 |
optional tool. |
71 |
|
72 |
If web-app config was a tool for me to use at my discretion, great. But |
73 |
a tool that replaces the functionality of portage? That sucks no matter |
74 |
how I look at it. |
75 |
|
76 |
I have, as do other Gentoo web-app developers that I'll leave unnamed |
77 |
many ideas about how this could be done better. My input is pointless if |
78 |
webapp-config is the way things are going to be done. It really negates |
79 |
the usefulness of many other tools. Was a roadmap created? Was anybody |
80 |
who uses this stuff asked? Was it mentioned that portage would just |
81 |
manage the downloading from here on out? Why weren't these features if |
82 |
necessary made a part of portage? |
83 |
|
84 |
Portage is a great tool for managing applications. I'd like to use it |
85 |
for my entire Gentoo system. |
86 |
|
87 |
Wendall |
88 |
-- |
89 |
"Only the ideas that we really live have any value." --Hermann Hesse |
90 |
(Demian) |
91 |
|
92 |
|
93 |
-- |
94 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |