You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to packagers@httpd.apache.org by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> on 2005/03/26 19:45:50 UTC
So, did anybody subscribe yet?
Given the deafening silence, and the complete lack of response from the
various package managers I've attempted to contact, it would seem that
we're not getting a whole lot of support for the idea of a packagers
mailing list. I think that the conversation would be very helpful for
the users, but we need the participants yet.
So, I was wondering if anyone subscribed while I wasn't looking. Anybody
out there?
--
---------------------[ Ciphire Signature ]----------------------
From: rbowen@rcbowen.com signed email body (340 characters)
Date: on 26 March 2005 at 18:45:43 UTC
To: packagers@httpd.apache.org
----------------------------------------------------------------
: Ciphire has secured this email against identity theft.
: Free download at www.ciphire.com. The garbled lines
: below are the sender's verifiable digital signature.
----------------------------------------------------------------
00fAAAAAEAAADXrUVCVAEAAN0CAAIAAgACACD4hP3HCWz08C5787n8Mt/qdg2KZC
GciC18hFq8xe5/SgEAyDpfI7T/73KTLlXP2RQEbNlZpYKPocnKo1O7kWkekNkDhd
Up34rBQjSNtFew3oJmE6Ia1Eo2o6AjEaBobHgc/w==
------------------[ End Ciphire Signed Message ]----------------
Re: So, did anybody subscribe yet?
Posted by Benedikt Boehm <ho...@gentoo.org>.
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 21:17, Christian Parpart wrote:
> On Saturday 26 March 2005 7:45 pm, Rich Bowen wrote:
> > Given the deafening silence, and the complete lack of response from the
> > various package managers I've attempted to contact, it would seem that
> > we're not getting a whole lot of support for the idea of a packagers
> > mailing list. I think that the conversation would be very helpful for
> > the users, but we need the participants yet.
>
> response? hmm.... am I missing something? however ;)
>
> > So, I was wondering if anyone subscribed while I wasn't looking. Anybody
> > out there?
>
> /me *waves*
>
> greets,
> Christian Parpart.
I'm subscribed too :)
--
He who asks a question is a fool for a minute,
He who doesn't ask is a fool for a lifetime.
Re: So, did anybody subscribe yet?
Posted by Christian Parpart <tr...@gentoo.org>.
On Saturday 26 March 2005 7:45 pm, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Given the deafening silence, and the complete lack of response from the
> various package managers I've attempted to contact, it would seem that
> we're not getting a whole lot of support for the idea of a packagers
> mailing list. I think that the conversation would be very helpful for
> the users, but we need the participants yet.
response? hmm.... am I missing something? however ;)
> So, I was wondering if anyone subscribed while I wasn't looking. Anybody
> out there?
/me *waves*
greets,
Christian Parpart.
--
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
21:14:56 up 6 days, 10:21, 0 users, load average: 0.34, 0.49, 0.51
Re: So, did anybody subscribe yet?
Posted by jean-frederic clere <jf...@fujitsu-siemens.com>.
Rich Bowen wrote:
> Given the deafening silence, and the complete lack of response from the
> various package managers I've attempted to contact, it would seem that
> we're not getting a whole lot of support for the idea of a packagers
> mailing list. I think that the conversation would be very helpful for
> the users, but we need the participants yet.
>
> So, I was wondering if anyone subscribed while I wasn't looking. Anybody
> out there?
>
yep.
Re: So, did anybody subscribe yet?
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Tollef Fog Heen said:
> I think you are talking about file system layout here? If so, we
> follow the FHS, so you shouldn't see any significant differences
> between different distributions at all, and certainly not among
> different Debian derivatives.
Ok.
> I was talking about source package layout, which for the Debian
> package is:
>
> debian/* - All the debian packaging stuff
> upstream
> upstream/tarballs
> upstream/tarballs/zzzdebicons.tgz
> upstream/tarballs/httpd-2.0.53.tar.gz
The source RPM packages can be created from a normal apr/httpd tarball
like this:
rpmbuild -ta apr-1.1.1.tar.gz
An embedded file apr.spec created when apr is packaged makes this possible.
I understand a similar method exists for Debian that can turn an
apr-1.1.1.tar.gz file into an apr-1.1.1.deb - is this true?
> How would you incorporate:
>
> --- apache2-2.0.25+cvs-20010908/apache2/docs/cgi-examples/printenv.orig
> Fri Sep 21 17:31:24 2001
> +++ apache2-2.0.25+cvs-20010908/apache2/docs/cgi-examples/printenv
> Fri Sep 21 17:31:29 2001
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -#!/usr/local/bin/perl
> +#!/usr/bin/perl
> ##
> ## printenv -- demo CGI program which just prints its environment
> ##
>
> ?
Using --enable-<something> options to configure. The hardcoding of the
perl binary here is a (small) bug.
> or a patch to disable the use of the apache builting pcre, or a change
> from the use of lynx to www-browser in apachectl.
>
> My point is a bunch of those patches are not appropriate to include in
> the tree, but make apache feel like an integrated part of Debian
> rather than a bolted-on component.
I'd say almost all the patches are appropriate to the tree. If people have
to patch the tree before they can build it how they want it, then the tree
isn't doing the job of serving the end user.
I can understand why patches are appropriate to a distro: The distro needs
changes, and it is not always practical to convince package maintainers to
incorporate those changes. However when a packaging system forms part of
the source tree, then patches are a poor approach to changing the install.
Rather solve the problem properly using autoconf switches (etc).
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: So, did anybody subscribe yet?
Posted by Tollef Fog Heen <tf...@err.no>.
* "Graham Leggett"
| The second purpose is to provide a reference install for that particular
| package style in the hope of limiting the proliferations of package
| layouts out there. A difference between RPM based systems and Debian based
| systems makes sense, and is already catered for. But if every Debian
| derived system has their own layout, we have a mess that would be good to
| try and avoid.
I think you are talking about file system layout here? If so, we
follow the FHS, so you shouldn't see any significant differences
between different distributions at all, and certainly not among
different Debian derivatives.
I was talking about source package layout, which for the Debian
package is:
debian/* - All the debian packaging stuff
upstream
upstream/tarballs
upstream/tarballs/zzzdebicons.tgz
upstream/tarballs/httpd-2.0.53.tar.gz
| As a side effect of this, the packaging files that are in tree should not
| (and currently don't) contain any patches. If a patch is necessary, a
| change should be made directly to the source code. The RPM spec files for
| example were based on Redhat RPMS, and have had all the patches removed.
| The problems the patches were trying to fix have been incorporated into
| the source tree.
How would you incorporate:
--- apache2-2.0.25+cvs-20010908/apache2/docs/cgi-examples/printenv.orig Fri Sep 21 17:31:24 2001
+++ apache2-2.0.25+cvs-20010908/apache2/docs/cgi-examples/printenv Fri Sep 21 17:31:29 2001
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#!/usr/local/bin/perl
+#!/usr/bin/perl
##
## printenv -- demo CGI program which just prints its environment
##
?
or a patch to disable the use of the apache builting pcre, or a change
from the use of lynx to www-browser in apachectl.
My point is a bunch of those patches are not appropriate to include in
the tree, but make apache feel like an integrated part of Debian
rather than a bolted-on component.
--
Tollef Fog Heen ,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :
`. `'
`-
Re: So, did anybody subscribe yet?
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Tollef Fog Heen said:
> Technically, it's not a problem to include it in the tree, but I'm not
> sure it's a good idea. Some parts of the tree will differ between
> different Debian-based distributions (the changelog and possibly any
> patches). Also the Debian packaging is a bit different with the
> apache tarball shipped inside the source package.
The different structure between distributions is already allowed for by
mechanisms built into the Apache source code, so this is not a problem.
There are two purposes in including build files into the tree. The first
is to give the end user the option of trying out the latest bleeding edge
version without waiting for their vendor to catch up.
The second purpose is to provide a reference install for that particular
package style in the hope of limiting the proliferations of package
layouts out there. A difference between RPM based systems and Debian based
systems makes sense, and is already catered for. But if every Debian
derived system has their own layout, we have a mess that would be good to
try and avoid.
As a side effect of this, the packaging files that are in tree should not
(and currently don't) contain any patches. If a patch is necessary, a
change should be made directly to the source code. The RPM spec files for
example were based on Redhat RPMS, and have had all the patches removed.
The problems the patches were trying to fix have been incorporated into
the source tree.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: So, did anybody subscribe yet?
Posted by Tollef Fog Heen <tf...@debian.org>.
* Graham Leggett
| I don't know anything about Debian packages (yet) - is it possible
| to get an official packaging file contributed for inclusion?
It's not a file, it's a directory tree which lives in debian/ in the
root of the product.
Technically, it's not a problem to include it in the tree, but I'm not
sure it's a good idea. Some parts of the tree will differ between
different Debian-based distributions (the changelog and possibly any
patches). Also the Debian packaging is a bit different with the
apache tarball shipped inside the source package.
(I think Thom May has some more reasons not to do it the way the RPM
distros are too, so Cc-ing him.)
--
Tollef Fog Heen ,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :
`. `'
`-
Re: So, did anybody subscribe yet?
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> (So we have at least RH, Debian, Ubuntu here. Apologies to Graham for
> me not knowing what distribution team (if any) he's part of.)
I am not part of a distro, but ASF - so far I've managed to get RPM spec
files, and a script to build Solaris packages into httpd and APR. What
would be ideal is to get a Debian based package file committed to the
httpd and apr trees as well. I don't know anything about Debian packages
(yet) - is it possible to get an official packaging file contributed for
inclusion?
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: So, did anybody subscribe yet?
Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Rich Bowen
>
> | So, I was wondering if anyone subscribed while I wasn't looking. Anybody
> | out there?
>
> *wave*
>
> (So we have at least RH, Debian, Ubuntu here. Apologies to Graham for
> me not knowing what distribution team (if any) he's part of.)
>
*wave*
I keep tabs on apache/apr over in gentoo land.
-Paul
Re: So, did anybody subscribe yet?
Posted by Tollef Fog Heen <tf...@debian.org>.
* Rich Bowen
| So, I was wondering if anyone subscribed while I wasn't looking. Anybody
| out there?
*wave*
(So we have at least RH, Debian, Ubuntu here. Apologies to Graham for
me not knowing what distribution team (if any) he's part of.)
--
Tollef Fog Heen ,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :
`. `'
`-
Re: So, did anybody subscribe yet?
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Rich Bowen wrote:
> Given the deafening silence, and the complete lack of response from the
> various package managers I've attempted to contact, it would seem that
> we're not getting a whole lot of support for the idea of a packagers
> mailing list. I think that the conversation would be very helpful for
> the users, but we need the participants yet.
>
> So, I was wondering if anyone subscribed while I wasn't looking. Anybody
> out there?
I am out there.
I have been busy trying to get Sunfreeware to support APR as a system
library - they still package subversion depending on httpd, which has
been a reason why local Sun admins here won't install subversion from
Sunfreeware. If we can get the Sunfreeware people onto this list it
would be a good thing.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: So, did anybody subscribe yet?
Posted by "Dr. Peter Poeml" <po...@suse.de>.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:45:50PM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote:
> So, I was wondering if anyone subscribed while I wasn't looking. Anybody
> out there?
Hello, I'm SUSE's maintainer.
Regards,
Peter
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Thought is limitation.
Research & Development Free your mind.
Re: So, did anybody subscribe yet?
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:45:50PM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Given the deafening silence, and the complete lack of response from the
> various package managers I've attempted to contact, it would seem that
> we're not getting a whole lot of support for the idea of a packagers
> mailing list. I think that the conversation would be very helpful for
> the users, but we need the participants yet.
>
> So, I was wondering if anyone subscribed while I wasn't looking. Anybody
> out there?
I'm subscribed too.