1 |
On Saturday 15 December 2007, Randy Barlow wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Yeah, that's the kinds of differences of opinion that are in the bug |
4 |
> report, which is part of what makes this a more difficult ebuild to |
5 |
> write. Things like libraries are really easy because it's just a |
6 |
> configure make make install, but here you have a lot of configuration |
7 |
> files and differences of opinion. I was thinking that a USE variable |
8 |
> could be in order here, to support suid and a separate apache |
9 |
> instance. Perhaps the variable could be suid? |
10 |
|
11 |
First, my opinion is that BackupPC, while being a wonderful application, |
12 |
should be split in two parts (by upstream): the daemon, and the web |
13 |
interface, so that they don't have to run on the same machine. Last time |
14 |
I checked, this was not supported, even if the config file seemed to |
15 |
allow for such a config. If this was the architecture, then it could be |
16 |
split into two distinct ebuilds, like eg zabbix or other apps. |
17 |
|
18 |
That said, and things being the way they are now, I'd make the suid |
19 |
behavior the default, since it requires less changes in a running system |
20 |
(a perl reemerge at most - assuming of course apache is already |
21 |
installed). If the user wants the separate apache instance, then he can |
22 |
set, say, USE=private-apache to get it. (btw, do gentoo initscripts |
23 |
support starting multiple instances of a daemon, perhaps under different |
24 |
users and using different parameters? I'd not bet on it, but I may be |
25 |
wrong. If it's not supported, waiting for baselayout to support this may |
26 |
take a long time, so it would be better to release the easier suid |
27 |
version in the meanwhile.) |
28 |
|
29 |
But again, there might be better arguments for doing the opposite. I'll |
30 |
take a look at the b.g.o. page where the ebuild is discussed (last time |
31 |
I checked was long ago, and things have surely evolved by now). |
32 |
-- |
33 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |