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

Reply via email to