On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Maciej Mrozowski <reave...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 10 of March 2010 07:52:28 Benedikt Böhm wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Sebastian Pipping <sp...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > There are quite a few bugs open for it plus the latest version (1.50.18) >> > is not even in Gentoo but on SourceForge only. >> >> The release on sourceforge is not compatible with the current >> implementation in Gentoo AFAIK. >> >> webapp-config is in a horrible shape and also has several design >> flaws. i wouldn't touch it. that's why i already added an idea to the >> GSoC list for a complete w-c rewrite. i talked to gunnar in 2008 or >> 2009 at chemnitz linux days, and we agreed that w-c needs a rewrite. >> but none of us had/has time to do it. hopefully gsoc can change this >> situation. > > This issue always bothered me. Why do we need exclusive web-app config > application that effectively mirrors what emerge is supposed to do?
as you obviously figured the replicated package manager behaviour is for installing apps into multiple vhosts. at first i thought this was a nice idea, but after some time managing webapps with w-c, i really hate it and install most things manually nowadays ;-) > Don't bash me, maybe I'm obviously missing something but I'd really prefer > simpler, Debian-like approach to webapps, so: > - web-apps installed in /usr/share instead of /var/www (is there any benefit > from polluting /var/www with system-managed applications?) > - webapp-specific apache config installed in let's say /etc/apache2/conf.d/ > and included from httpd.conf so that any application works out of the box > (Alias directive may be suitable in example below) i am in favour of debian-like approach too, but i think there are people relying on the w-c approach now, so an optimal solution would be to just make webapp-config optional, but this may be an impossible task, i don't really know. Bene