Gentoo Archives: gentoo-web-user

From: Renat Lumpau <rl03@g.o>
To: gentoo-web-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-web-user] Upstream requirements for web-apps
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:46:41
Message-Id: 20060129234440.GB32289@toucan.gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-web-user] Upstream requirements for web-apps by Gunnar Wrobel
1 On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 12:41:51PM +0100, Gunnar Wrobel wrote:
2 > Ok, so this clearly describes a man power problem that currently does
3 > not exist. I know from personal experience that I only have about half
4 > a day for looking at a bug assigned to webapps until Renat wakes up and
5 > fixes it :) But it's clear that the herd should be able to handle the
6 > bugs in case Renat is not around.
7
8 We need to be able, yes. Realistically speaking, if I disappear, that would
9 require someone else spending more time on bug-fixing. Nowadays it's not too bad
10 - we're talking maybe 1-5 version bumps and a couple of bugs a week. Is there
11 anyone willing to take on that responsibility?
12
13 Stuart and I agreed that I will start forwarding all my Gentoo mail to him (and
14 anyone else who's interested) when I leave for the summer to make sure we
15 continue to get release notifications and email from upstream.
16
17 > Would it be reasonable to try to define two webapps members as primary
18 > maintainers for each of the packages that we select? I believe that
19 > could reduce the effect of looking at a bug and deciding that
20 > "somebody" will certainly fix it.
21
22 Excellent point. Currently I just assume that if a bug is filed, I'm the person
23 who'll fix it. Are other herd members willing and able to pitch in?
24
25 > I believe that we should not make the current suggestion for the
26 > security requirements a real requirement for the list of selected
27 > applications but instead just declare them as the desired goal.
28
29 I'm still unconvinced that security requirements meet a real need. We don't
30 currently have any outstanding security issues (perhaps with the exception of
31 phpBB and mantisbt, both of which have active upstreams yet can't get their act
32 together wrt security, and both are p-masked).
33
34 > As I mentioned in my last mail, I wanted to be able to have additional
35 > packages in portage that I personally use. The main reason for that
36 > was that I feel that the overlay will never be on the same level as
37 > the tree itself. While it is not extremely complex to use the user
38 > will have to know about it, install subversion, check out a
39 > repository, and modify the make.conf. This is more than what I
40 > consider necessary to tell the user "that this package is less well
41 > maintained / less secure than the packages in the main portage tree".
42 > I guess it will actually prevent a number of people from ever
43 > seeing the package.
44
45 I say go for it - if you're willing to maintain them yourself and aren't going
46 to create more work for me ;)
47
48 > In addition I believe some users might not be exactly happy if we
49 > start moving packages out of portage into the overlay.
50 >
51 > So in order to make the process less complex I will provide
52 > "layman". The tool is able to manage gentoo overlays. In order to get
53 > the webapps overlay you run
54 >
55 > emerge layman
56 > layman -f -a webapps-stable -a webapps-experimental
57 >
58 > to get both overlays fetched and added to your make.conf
59 > automatically. To update the repositories you can later run
60 >
61 > layman --sync
62 >
63 > People that want to crash their hard drives can get it from my
64 > overlay:
65 >
66 > layman -f -a wrobel-stable
67 > emerge layman
68 >
69 > :)
70 >
71 > I think this significantly reduces the differences between the overlay
72 > and the tree. As a result my urge to add stuff to the tree would also
73 > be significantly reduced. And I think that moving stuff from the tree
74 > to the overlay would then be an acceptable option.
75 >
76 > For the overlay I would suggest that the "production-stable" branch
77 > should be only accesible to devs and that we handle it the same way as
78 > we currently handle the tree. The "experimental" branch would continue
79 > to be our playground.
80
81 All great ideas. layman would be great - any idea when you'll release? Have you
82 checked with other devs if they're aware of or are developing something similar?
83
84 --
85 Renat Lumpau all things web-apps
86 C6A838DA 04AF B5EE 17CB 1000 DDA5 D3FC 1338 ADC2 C6A8 38DA
87 America - land of the free*
88 *Void where prohibited, restrictions apply. Cash value 1/100c.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-web-user] Upstream requirements for web-apps Gunnar Wrobel <wrobel@g.o>