[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696
--- Comment #121 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2012-04-17 04:44:07 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #120)
Updated my spec and SRPM to fix the Requires. URLs are unchanged.
Hi Bret, the condition for fastthread should be %if 0%{?rhel} = 6
0%{?fedora} = 16. Thank you.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #122 from Brett Lentz brett.le...@gmail.com 2012-04-17 08:31:23 EDT --- Updated my spec and SRPM to fix the fastthread logic. URLs are unchanged. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #116 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2012-04-16 04:37:48 EDT --- Guys, could you please update the spec according to the new Ruby packaging guidelines, i.e. use rubygems-devel, there is no need for declaration of gemdir geminstdir ruby_sitearch ruby_sitelib and more over the ruby_vendorarch and ruby_vendorlib should be used instead of their site equivalents. Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #117 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2012-04-16 04:51:19 EDT --- I submitted some bug fixes upstream which hadn't been submitted before: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6796 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #118 from Brett Lentz brett.le...@gmail.com 2012-04-16 15:16:34 EDT --- Here's the spec I've been working on, with several portions of Jeroen's spec incorporated. This should comply with the current Ruby packaging guidelines. SRPM: http://wakko666.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-passenger/rubygem-passenger-3.0.12-1.src.rpm SPEC: http://wakko666.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-passenger/rubygem-passenger.spec There's a few things in the built package that rpmlint isn't too happy about, including a few false warnings about misspellings. None of the warnings rpmlint throws appear to be critical. I'm currently not including the nginx bits, as there doesn't appear to be any way to ship a module for nginx in the same way we ship apache modules, and shipping a statically compiled version of nginx in the passenger package isn't really acceptable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #119 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2012-04-16 15:41:03 EDT --- I have few notes again: * rubygem-fastthread was deprecated and removed from F17. The functionality was integrated into Ruby * I'd like to see removed the Requires: rubygem(rake). It is typically not required for runtime. However, I am not passenger specialist, so it might be needed at the end. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #120 from Brett Lentz brett.le...@gmail.com 2012-04-16 17:04:36 EDT --- Updated my spec and SRPM to fix the Requires. URLs are unchanged. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #112 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2012-04-14 07:50:44 EDT --- I'll update these to the later version and the new Ruby ABI requirements for rawhide/f17 later today: New SPEC: http://git.kolabsys.com/rpm/rubygem-passenger/plain/rubygem-passenger.spec New SRPM: http://mirror.kolabsys.com/pub/redhat/kolab-2.4/el6/development/SRPMS/rubygem-passenger-2.2.15-1.el6.kolab_2.4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #113 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2012-04-14 11:57:09 EDT --- Still a work in progress, and only shipping the gem and apache module. Builds using mock for el5, el6, f16, f17 and rawhide. New SPEC: http://kanarip.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-passenger.spec New SRPM: http://kanarip.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-passenger-3.0.12-1.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #114 from Brett Lentz brett.le...@gmail.com 2012-04-14 13:11:19 EDT --- Jeroen - Thanks for posting your specs. I'll look them over and incorporate them into my final version on Monday. I've got a few things I want to do a bit differently. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #115 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2012-04-14 15:10:22 EDT --- Now including nginx-passenger as well: New SPEC: http://kanarip.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-passenger.spec New SRPM: http://kanarip.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-passenger-3.0.12-1.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #111 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2012-04-13 02:55:18 EDT --- Good to hear that things have been solved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 Brett Lentz brett.le...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brett.le...@gmail.com --- Comment #110 from Brett Lentz brett.le...@gmail.com 2012-04-12 19:51:56 EDT --- Okay, so... After the Boost community has raised some valid concerns about certain portions of the changes in Passenger's fork, I've applied for a bundling exception with the FPC. The bundling exception was GRANTED, conditional that I would be the package's maintainer. (See: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/160 ) With that, it appears that we're finally clear to resume the package review. I will be posting a new spec and srpm sometime in the next few days. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #106 from Stijn Hoop st...@sandcat.nl 2012-01-20 10:40:08 EST --- Just FYI, the stack trace bits appear to have been commited to be part of boost 1.49.0 (at least the more generic version as mentioned by Brett Lentz): https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2741#comment:9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #107 from John Florian john_flor...@dart.biz 2012-01-20 11:14:47 EST --- I'm glad to hear progress is being made here on this as I'm really hoping Passenger will make my puppet server scale to bigger loads better. Can someone here that is more familiar with all the gory details of getting Passenger into Fedora give me some kind of estimate of how close we are now? Are these recent gains that have been announced just a few of many more that will have to be gained or do they represent some of the final bits falling into place? Are we 25%, 50%, 75% or 99.8% the way there? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #108 from Brett Lentz ble...@redhat.com 2012-01-20 12:55:46 EST --- John - I believe there are three modifications that Passenger has done to the base Boost libraries. Two of these three have been upstreamed, and we're actively working on getting the third modification ready for upstreaming. However, one of the two upstreamed changes was addressed with a more generic patch, and will require modifications to how Passenger handles that particular detail. I can't provide any specific estimates on when Passenger will land in Fedora. However, I can say that we're actively working on it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #109 from John Florian john_flor...@dart.biz 2012-01-20 15:52:33 EST --- Brett, Thanks for that update and I really appreciate all the hours you and others are putting in to make this happen. I'm anxious to see how it will improve things but not so anxious that I have a need to wander outside of yum repos to find out. It sounds as though Boost is the big challenge ATM, although I also recall reading somewhere that there was a whole slew of other packages that would need to be brought into Fedora as well; hopefully those are all moving along well too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #104 from Brett Lentz ble...@redhat.com 2011-12-07 19:39:22 EST --- I'm pleased to report that Boost has accepted the EINTR patch in its entirety. https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6200 This just leaves the stack trace bits as the last major portion to be upstreamed, AFAIK. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #105 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2011-12-08 00:25:26 EST --- Glad to hear. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #103 from Brett Lentz ble...@redhat.com 2011-12-02 10:35:03 EST --- Update on the stack size patch: It looks like the Boost folks are going with a more general solution, which is detailed in this ticket: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2741 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #100 from Brett Lentz ble...@redhat.com 2011-12-01 09:12:15 EST --- I've got a couple patches that I'm pushing the Boost folks to merge. I'm still unravelling the stack trace exception patch into something workable. Discussion on EINTR patch: http://marc.info/?t=13226901092r=1w=2\ Discussion on configurable stack size patch: http://marc.info/?t=13226698654r=1w=2 Hongli - If you have a moment to take a look at the discussion around your EINTR modifications. According to the Boost folks, POSIX specifically forbids pthreads from returning EINTR. You already mentioned that this happened on a customer's system in production, do you recall what OS it was? It might make that particular patch a bit more palatable if we can couch it in some ifdefs, so that it's only necessary on the broken platform. Additionally, it might allow us to file a bug with the upstream OS if the behavior still exists. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #101 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2011-12-01 12:39:38 EST --- If I remember correctly it was Debian. It's very important to me that lock() handles EINTR. I don't think couching it with #ifdefs is a good idea though because compiling a whitelist or blacklist is just too much work. Even in the same OS, some versions of the threading library may be broken while some versions may not, and later versions may introduce regressions. It's just easier to always check for EINTR. While it is technically correct that returning EINTR indicates a bug in the OS, relying on the OS vendor to fix the bug is not a good practical solution. - Different vendors fix bugs at different paces. Fixing the bug can take months or years but the user wants the software to work yesterday. He does not care which party is to blame. - Some users use old versions of an OS by choice. - Some users are part of an organization whose IT department does not allow OS upgrades, for whatever reason. - Upgrading Phusion Passenger is far easier than upgrading the entire OS and is less risky. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #102 from Brett Lentz ble...@redhat.com 2011-12-01 13:50:38 EST --- Ah, it was some flavor of Linux, not OS X or some other non-Linux OS? Among other things, I am trying to anticipate next steps if the Boost folks decide to not accept that portion of your fork. Being that it's a violation of POSIX, it's totally fair for them to say that it's not within the scope of their library to workaround a broken threading library. The correct fix would be to fix the threading library itself. (I don't like this possibility, but I must acknowledge that it exists.) However, I completely agree with you about all of the implications of what a decision like that means. For now, I'm hopeful that they'll still accept it because it makes the whole library's threading support more robust. In the meantime, if you saw this behavior on Linux, I will look into whether this issue has already been reported and fixed in pthread. That information would be good to know, regardless. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #99 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2011-09-29 02:22:41 EDT --- You can just look for it. Thanks for the effort. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #95 from Brett Lentz ble...@redhat.com 2011-09-28 13:23:56 EDT --- I have started discussion on the boost mailing list about upstreaming the two biggest portions of passenger's boost fork: the optional stack_size argument in thread::start_thread and the additional stack tracing and exception handling. Initial response to these potential features is very positive. The thread is archived here, among other places: http://marc.info/?t=13172286823r=1w=2 The patches will require some clean-up and adjustments to support Boot's requirement for cross-platform compatibility. However, I don't think that's a show stopper. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #96 from Bobby Powers bo...@laptop.org 2011-09-28 13:33:22 EDT --- very encouraging! Thanks for getting this rolling again Brett. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #97 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2011-09-28 14:03:16 EDT --- Hi Brett. If you can get the changes bundled in Boost then what we can do is adding an option to disable compiling against the bundled Boost, and instead compile against the system Boost. We'll still want to continue bundling Boost for the sake of platforms on which installing Boost is a hassle (e.g. OS X), but I believe adding such a compile option should solve your issue as well. I do not mind it if the API that the Boost folks develop is slightly different than ours. It should be noted that our backtrace support is not automatic. It relies on the user manually specifying backtrace points with TRACE_POINT() macros. It's documented here: https://github.com/FooBarWidget/passenger/blob/master/ext/oxt/backtrace.hpp The backtrace system is built in such a way that it can be integrated with oxt::thread. oxt::thread is like boost::thread but also registers each thread on a global thread list, each of which has its own thread-local backtrace list. This way, one can obtain the backtraces of all threads during runtime. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #98 from Brett Lentz ble...@redhat.com 2011-09-28 18:33:23 EDT --- Hongli - A disable option works for me. Do you need me to report a bug/feature request, or can I just look for it in an upcoming release? Thanks for the heads-up about the macros. I know being able to opt-in is a concern for the Boost folks, so I'll make sure to highlight that. Lastly, if you have the time to follow the conversation on the boost-list, please let me know if there are any proposals that you have any objection to or will have difficulty working with. Also, if I misrepresent your code at all, don't hesitate to ping me either here or directly at ble...@redhat.com. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 Brett Lentz ble...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ble...@redhat.com --- Comment #94 from Brett Lentz ble...@redhat.com 2011-09-22 14:18:50 EDT --- Hongli - Like many others, I'd like to see Passenger be accepted into Fedora (and EPEL). I am willing to put some time and effort into making it happen. In comment #43, it seems that you are/were amicable to your modifications being pushed upstream. I'd be happy to take on the task of working with the Boost community to get your changes merged. So, let me ask you directly: If I can get your modifications upstream, will you be willing to drop your bundled version of Boost? I will caveat this somewhat by saying that, after having read over your changes, the Boost folks may want to recommend some changes to your implementation. I will do my best to make sure your code gets upstreamed with as few changes as possible, but I think it's reasonable to expect that it won't be perfect. I'd like to have you be involved in that dialogue as much as possible. I realize you're a busy person and can't really dedicate much time to something that doesn't provide you with immediate benefits. However, if you're willing to exchange a few e-mails with me through this process, it will help me work through any issues that come up that much more quickly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #93 from Greg Swift greg_sw...@aotx.uscourts.gov 2011-04-21 16:23:22 EDT --- Is it just me or does the RPM lay down source files and expect the resulting system to compile the module? I've had this happen on 3 systems now. I would think this would not be expected behavior for an RPM. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #89 from Bobby Powers bo...@laptop.org 2011-03-15 13:03:04 EDT --- Created attachment 485557 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=485557 passenger 3.0 specfile without nginx support -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #90 from Bobby Powers bo...@laptop.org 2011-03-15 13:03:39 EDT --- Created attachment 485558 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=485558 diff between attached 3.0 spec and original -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 Bobby Powers bo...@laptop.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bo...@laptop.org --- Comment #88 from Bobby Powers bo...@laptop.org 2011-03-15 13:02:13 EDT --- another reason to get it in Fedora, Hongli, is that your rpms are broken (bad signature). This was reported on your blog entry about the repos in January and still happens for me as of last week. Well, passenger 3 is out and none of the srpm or spec files listed above, so I modified the latest srpm release to get something close to what we want I think. Since this original packaging request, it looks like the passenger available through phusion's repos also bundles a version of nginx. My changes to the spec file basically are to remove that (as a consequence, it only builds the apache plugin, not the nginx one as well). The srpm is available at http://dev.laptop.org/~bobbyp/passenger/rubygem-passenger-3.0.4-2.fc14.src.rpm I'll attach the modified specfile (and a diff between the original and it) to this bug. It still has the vendored boost, but I'm hoping we can apply to get an exemption as api and functionality has changed. The biggest problem I see is this note on [1]: 'If no attempt has been made to push the changes upstream, we shouldn't be supporting people forking out of laziness'. And if phusion won't allow us to use passenger, we can probably rename the library to 'straphanger' or some such fairly easily. Regards. 1 - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #91 from Bobby Powers bo...@laptop.org 2011-03-15 13:06:35 EDT --- one last thing, there are 2 deps for passenger 3.0 that are not in Fedora (14, at least). rubygem-file-tail and rubygem-spruz. I used the versions from Phusion's repos, but these would need to be accepted into the fedora repos too -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #92 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2011-03-15 13:48:49 EDT --- Our Boost changes are highly Unix-specific. Phusion Passenger makes no attempt to support Windows. However Boost must support Windows. I do not want to waste my time on writing Windows support for our patches. Furthermore we're getting rid of the file-tail (and, indirectly, spurz) dependency for the next release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #87 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2011-02-17 09:45:48 EST --- What about keep Passanger as it is and provide boost-passenger for fedora, i.e. fork of boost? It may be even just subset of boost required by passenger? Of course I expcet that this boost fork would be maintained by Phussion, since they have to do it anyway IMO. Don't take me wrong, I know it is workarond. However forking of project is very natural in opensource, nobody will say Oh, we cannot have LibreOffice in Fedora, because it is fork of OpenOffice.org. The same would apply for boost-passenger. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #86 from Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org 2011-01-28 15:29:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #83) cpg, we now provide third party packages so I believe it's no longer necessary for Fedora to ship Phusion Passenger. Our packages are updated very quickly against official releases too. http://blog.phusion.nl/2011/01/04/phusion-passenger-native-packages-for-redhatfedoracentos/ Thanks for maintaining these packages externally, but I think Fedora users would be served better if passenger were distributed along with the rest of the OS. Maintaining a system using multiple disparate repositories is a PITA, especially with yum. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #83 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2011-01-20 03:12:03 EST --- cpg, we now provide third party packages so I believe it's no longer necessary for Fedora to ship Phusion Passenger. Our packages are updated very quickly against official releases too. http://blog.phusion.nl/2011/01/04/phusion-passenger-native-packages-for-redhatfedoracentos/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #84 from Greg Swift greg_sw...@aotx.uscourts.gov 2011-01-20 11:31:40 EST --- Hongli, those of us that need this for clean RoR installations in our RH based environment will take those and suffer through, but at the end of the day I'm sure many of us would rather the packages were actually capable of being provided by Fedora/CentOS/EPEL. The points behind the No Bundled Libraries restriction are very valid, and speaking from experience I can say we've been burned over the long run by vendors with good intentions and poor follow through on staying up with changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #85 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2011-01-20 11:53:43 EST --- Greg, if you look at our reputation we have a very strong follow through of staying up with security updates. Organizations like New York Times, Wikipedia, Pixar etc don't use our stuff for no reason. On top of that, trying seeing our use of Boost in perspective. We pretty much only use the threading and smart pointer stuff. The former is a thin wrapper around the OS APIs. Neither of them are responsible for processing user or network input. I would be very surprised if they even make vulnerabilities possible, ever. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #80 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2011-01-19 18:57:06 EST --- The package contains a bundled library and upstream is unwilling to have it unbundled and still use the passenger trademark. No one has put in a request to the FPC to grant an exception for this package to bundle libraries so that's still a possibility to resolve the bundled library issue but there doesn't seem to be any good exception material here so I'm unsure that it would pass. Another option would be to fork the code and unbundle using a non-trademarked name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||n...@fedoraproject.org Blocks||182235(FE-Legal) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ber...@codewiz.org --- Comment #79 from Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org 2011-01-19 18:41:24 EST --- Can someone please clarify why this review is stuck? Does the packager need to take action? Or does the reviewer need to analyze again the package after the licencing issue has been resolved? Thanks, -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||658489(FE-BUNDLEDLIBS) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #81 from cpg c...@rocketmail.com 2011-01-19 19:22:16 EST --- Who has the technology to put in a request to the FPC to grant an exception for this package to bundle libraries ? Can I do it, if so can someone explain how? Things are getting to the point that Fedora is going down the drain ... we cannot even purchase VPS servers with Fedora on them due to the lack of long term support, fast cycles and lack of proper support for things like RoR, in most part due to this very issue with passenger. Thanks the unwise people upstream that are dragging their feet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #82 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-01-19 19:27:28 EST --- The instructions are at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries Please be sure you answer all of the questions presented there. It is wise to avoid hyperbole such as Fedora is going down the drain. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #78 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2011-01-04 04:56:54 EST --- We are pleased to announce third party RPMs for Phusion Passenger: http://blog.phusion.nl/2011/01/04/phusion-passenger-native-packages-for-redhatfedoracentos/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #77 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2010-11-21 11:29:47 EST --- I'm working on getting the necessary people to understand this package needs an exception in order to get Real Life Problems fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 Nathan Anderson air1...@ups.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||air1...@ups.com --- Comment #75 from Nathan Anderson air1...@ups.com 2010-11-17 15:57:03 EST --- I'm one of those users who *must* use yum/rpm to install software. Custom compiled software, be they gems, perl modules, c programs, etc, are forbidden. I'd love to see this included in Fedora, because then I could request it for the RHEL 6 EPEL repo. Are there still these two issues outstanding? 1. Vendored boost library 2. License incompatibility with scgi functions Thanks, Nathan -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #76 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2010-11-17 18:13:53 EST --- Nathan, Jason: yes, the license incompatibility has been solved. As for RPM/YUM packages, we are working on setting up a third party YUM repository as we speak, and we expect packages to be available in the near future. Please keep an eye on our blog for updates. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #67 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-09-15 02:46:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #65) Please note that Phusion Passenger is a registered trademark in the European Union and a pending trademark in the United States. If you want to ship a patched version of Phusion Passenger with changes that we do not approve of, we have to ask you to rename it something else. ??? Then would you clarify the license? If Phusion Passenger upstream has such policy, I guess we will anyway has to rename such software on Fedora - Note that Debian does not accept firefox or so due to the same reason. And there are so many discussion also on Fedora about whether we should rename firefox to something else. And if we decide the license is not free, we won't accept such software anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #68 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2010-09-15 13:19:24 EDT --- The license is just MIT license. It has got nothing to do with any trademark rights. I find it interesting that you see this as an issue. Red Hat does the same thing: one cannot modify RHEL and call it Red Hat, which is why Fedora and CentOS are named Fedora and CentOS and not Red Hat Community Edition or whatever. It is fine if you do not accept it. We will work with third party packagers instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #69 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2010-09-15 13:40:32 EDT --- Hongli, I believe he is asking if you have a separate license for use of the Phusion Passenger trademark. For example, Fedora's trademark guidelines are here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines Also, here is Mozilla's trademark policy: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html It would clarify things for us significantly if you could put into writing the terms under which use of your trademark is permitted. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #70 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2010-09-15 14:03:55 EDT --- I believe we have a fundamental disagreement in packaging policies. I believe it's easier for both of us if you close this issue and that we work with third party packagers instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #71 from Benjamin Kosnik b...@redhat.com 2010-09-15 14:10:28 EDT --- In regards to #62, from my analysis of the modified boost diff, the major sticking point is the hack to boost::thread_exception. I suggest a different error handling design. Instead of making thread_exception into what phusion passenger wants, derive oxt::traceable_thread_exception from the un-molested boost::thread_exception and your custom tracing bits add your changes there. This will cleanly separate out the client code (phusion passenger) from the library code (boost), remove the need to deal with upstream boost, help with packaging your software by removing your need to ship a custom boost, and allow you to use C++0x threads in the future. Win, win, win. Please consider it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #72 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2010-09-15 14:34:23 EDT --- The point of the modification was to have Boost.Thread itself throw exceptions that are derived from thread_exception. Making a seperate tracable_thread_exception won't solve that problem. But, as I've stated earlier, there are fundamental packaging policy disagreements between us and I believe it's easier to maintain the status quo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #73 from Jason Smith smit...@bnl.gov 2010-09-15 16:18:54 EDT --- Wow, this is amazing how this has degenerated. Ruby has to be one of the only popular languages without a standard apache module. Do the Phusion people not see the value in getting their software packaged into a major distribution like RedHat? And getting it into Fedora would be the first step towards that happening. Do they not realize the wide acceptance and popularity they would get (at least in the US and maybe worldwide) by being bundled with a large vendor's OS out of the box? Instead they want their customers to jump through hoops to install their software. Why do software tools have to reinvent packaging systems outside of the OS package management system anyway, like Ruby's Gems, Perl's CPAN Python's Eggs. From a sysadmin perspective, this is horrible and should be avoided at all costs. Anyway, since my main objective was to install a scalable puppet server, and since puppet recently released 2.6.1 which supports JRuby, I guess I will now be forced to look into that as an alternative, with tomcat. I'm sorry I reopened this can of worms. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #74 from Mohammed Morsi mmo...@redhat.com 2010-09-15 16:33:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #72) The point of the modification was to have Boost.Thread itself throw exceptions that are derived from thread_exception. Making a seperate tracable_thread_exception won't solve that problem. But, as I've stated earlier, there are fundamental packaging policy disagreements between us and I believe it's easier to maintain the status quo. Can't you simply catch the Boost Thread exceptions, and in the error handler throw your own custom exceptions? You can interpret the thread errors in your catch blocks and add as much debugging information as you need there. I'm actually surprised that hacking boost took less time than doing it this way. I suppose if you don't know all the boost thread exceptions, you'd want the backtraces all the way though boost, but this doesn't seem like the best practice. Also what environments are you passenger on. It may be more than Linux/g++ but if it isn't doesn't gcc have some non-standard means of obtaining backtrace information for c++ exceptions? I think everyone loses out with the status quo. There are Linux users who _must_ use rpm / yum to install software on their systems, and using gem is not an option. Thus you lose potential users of your software and we lose another supported / tested deployment scenario. It would be great if we can all work together to find and develop and acceptable solution that works for everyone. I understand that time is very tight nowadays, but this is why we're volunteering to help come up with and develop a solution. (btw no flamewars here please, everyone is right for their own reasons, just need to come up with the right solution) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #63 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2010-09-14 04:08:55 EDT --- Passenger 3's Boost is actually based on 1.42.0. A lot of API breakages have happened between Boost 1.35 and 1.42. I believe it's impossible to support multiple Boost versions without making our code a mess with #ifdefs everywhere. We only support one specific version of Boost for the time being: the one we use during development. The condition_variable and mutex error checks do not retry on all errors: they only retry on EINTR. BOOST_VERIFY aborts even on EINTR but EINTR is usually not fatal, it just means you need to try later. This issue bit us on one of our customers' production systems. Exception hierarchy change: yes they're informational. If a thread fails to spawn (i.e. thread_resource_error is thrown) then we'll want to show a backtrace. This is not possible without patching Boost and changing the ABI. Please do not remove TRACE_POINTs. They're an essential part of our system inspection features. Right now it's possible to query the backtrace of all threads in Phusion Passenger during runtime thanks to the TRACE_POINTs. If you get rid of that then our users will lose their ability to see what's going on and will introduce a lot of headaches when things go wrong. Thread constructor: it is not unnecessary, we do this intentionally to reduce the VM size. We create a lot of threads. The default thread stack size on Linux is 8 MB, so unless we reduce the stack sizes we can't create many threads and the VM size will grow very large, giving users the impression that we're memory hungry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #64 from Mohammed Morsi mmo...@redhat.com 2010-09-14 12:53:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #63) Passenger 3's Boost is actually based on 1.42.0. A lot of API breakages have happened between Boost 1.35 and 1.42. I believe it's impossible to support multiple Boost versions without making our code a mess with #ifdefs everywhere. We only support one specific version of Boost for the time being: the one we use during development. Can you please elaborate on this. Looking at the passenger repository, it seems boost is still marked as being on version 1.35 http://github.com/FooBarWidget/passenger/blob/master/ext/boost/VERSION.TXT and the last commit I see relating to 'updating boost' is the update to 1.35 http://github.com/FooBarWidget/passenger/commits/master/ext/boost At what point did you update to 1.42? In any case for this submission, boost is still at 1.35 which I hope isn't so incompatible with 1.44 (shipping on F14) that it won't compile against it. The condition_variable and mutex error checks do not retry on all errors: they only retry on EINTR. BOOST_VERIFY aborts even on EINTR but EINTR is usually not fatal, it just means you need to try later. This issue bit us on one of our customers' production systems. This is good to know that this was to solve an edge case on a production system. Which OS was this customer running btw? If it something other than Linux (and maybe even if it's another distro) we might not run into this onto Fedora and thus this can be omitted. Exception hierarchy change: yes they're informational. If a thread fails to spawn (i.e. thread_resource_error is thrown) then we'll want to show a backtrace. This is not possible without patching Boost and changing the ABI. Please do not remove TRACE_POINTs. They're an essential part of our system inspection features. Right now it's possible to query the backtrace of all threads in Phusion Passenger during runtime thanks to the TRACE_POINTs. If you get rid of that then our users will lose their ability to see what's going on and will introduce a lot of headaches when things go wrong. I would like to include this (and everything else), but it looks like there is no way to include passenger in Fedora without this being removed (eg passenger needs to work against the stock boost). So its either remove this debugging stuff or not ship passenger at all. Like you said in a previous comment, if anyone wants any of these features I'm removing they can simply get passenger via gem. Thread constructor: it is not unnecessary, we do this intentionally to reduce the VM size. We create a lot of threads. The default thread stack size on Linux is 8 MB, so unless we reduce the stack sizes we can't create many threads and the VM size will grow very large, giving users the impression that we're memory hungry. Have you guys ever considered using thread pools? Launching many threads indiscriminately is often considered bad practice, and you may get a performance boost by making use of a pool. Regardless its good to know that this is simply to make the memory footprint smaller, and it should work without this. Just curious is there any way to reduce the default thread stack size, systemwide lets say, without modifying/recompiling every program? I'm starting to hack at this to see if I can get it working. Based on your response the only thing that makes me not sure if this will work is the discrepancy between boost versions, but we'll just see if that poses and issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #65 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2010-09-14 13:37:24 EDT --- Can you please elaborate on this. Looking at the passenger repository, it seems boost is still marked as being on version 1.35 Passenger 3 will be based on 1.42. Passenger 3 isn't out yet but will soon be. Which OS was this customer running btw? Debian. But even if it was a different OS, the checks should remain. Returning EINTR is POSIX compliant behavior I believe, so apps should take care of it properly. I would like to include this (and everything else), but it looks like there is no way to include passenger in Fedora without this being removed (eg passenger needs to work against the stock boost). So its either remove this debugging stuff or not ship passenger at all. In that case I prefer to decline packaging. We cannot agree on having an important feature like that removed. We want every user who uses Phusion Passenger to experience the same quality, and we will find it unacceptable if quality differs among different OS packages. Have you guys ever considered using thread pools? Yes. Thread pools will not do. We really need all those threads, they're used for I/O concurrency so limiting them will not solve the problem. The default stack size can be changed through ulimit. However I disagree with the notion that the default stack size should be respected. There's a reason why pthread_attr_setstacksize() exists, and we use it for a good reason. It is certainly possible to patch Phusion Passenger to work with normal Boost. However doing so degrades the user experience in such a way that we cannot approve of such changes. Please note that Phusion Passenger is a registered trademark in the European Union and a pending trademark in the United States. If you want to ship a patched version of Phusion Passenger with changes that we do not approve of, we have to ask you to rename it something else. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 David Lutterkort lut...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||b...@redhat.com --- Comment #66 from David Lutterkort lut...@redhat.com 2010-09-14 18:46:10 EDT --- I am putting Benjamin Kosnick on cc since he maintains the boost package in Fedora, and hopefully can shed some light on some of the points that seem to be shortcomings in the boost API (not being able to set stack size for threads, handling of EINTR after waiting) Benjamin can you weigh in on the discussion starting with comment #62 ? I suspect that some of these things would be welcome enhancements to boost. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 Mohammed Morsi mmo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mmo...@redhat.com --- Comment #62 from Mohammed Morsi mmo...@redhat.com 2010-09-13 17:33:56 EDT --- I just spent a little while going through this and trying to figure out what exactly would need to be done to get passenger working with the stock boost in Fedora. The following are issues we may run into: Issues which shouldn't post a problem: * Additional 'defined' checks simply check for netbsd or solaris, neither of which is applicable here * elif BOOST_PP_INTERATION_DEPTH changes, made for gcc 4.4 compatibility. Since boost is already working against gcc in Fedora, this change isn't needed (correct me if I'm wrong) * whitespace changes in non_type.hpp, which I'm guessing shouldn't be there as nothing else is different Issues which might pose a problem: * the vendorized boost is at version 1.35 while in Fedora 14 we are going to be at 1.44. I believe this just about summarizes the issue Fedora has with vendorized libs, and I'm not sure if the thread library between these two versions are compatible. * the condition_varaible and mutex destructors and the condition_variable::wait method try to repeat the necessary pthread destruction code until it is successful, as opposed to attempting it once and verifying the result with BOOST_VERIFY. As of right now I'm not sure why it does this, it seems to me that if the pthread destruction call fails once, it'll fail everytime, and if this is necessary on Linux. It may not be, this change maybe only for solaris or something; some additional clarification would be great. If it is required this is going to be very hard if not impossible to remove as if assertions in boost are enabled, BOOST_VERIFY will terminate a running program (if the condition being verified is false) and there isn't much we can do about it. * changes to the exception hierarchy and additional exception information has been added to thread_exception, thread_resource_error, and thread_interrupted, to add backtrace and system_error_code support. Unless I'm mistaken these are purely informational only (for debugging) and thus this shouldn't pose an issue (once again correct me if I'm wrong). The apache hooks may have to be modified though to remove the TRACE_POINTs (or perhaps not, still needs more exploration) * the thread constructor and start_thread method take an optional stack size. From my current understanding this is platform specific, and since boost is already working on Fedora Linux x86 and x86_64 as is, this is unneeded. That about covers it, I am going to attempt to see if I can passenger working against boost in Fedora, but might not be able to for the aforementioned reasons. If anyone knows any fault in my analysis above, or some other reason why I won't be able to, please correct me, so that I don't invest a ton of time into this. Also if I am successful, it may come at the price of a heavily modified passenger source, but we'll tackle that if/when we get to that point. P.S. would creating a separate upstream project resolve this issue without any of this? Obviously someone would have to maintain this, but would something like a passenger-boost project work? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #61 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2010-08-25 10:33:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #60) (In reply to comment #59) You can only be as disappointed as much as you're willing to sink your teeth into solving the actual problems stated above. That would be very difficult since I know absolutely nothing about ruby. My only interest is in setting up a scalable puppet system and as a sysadmin, for obvious reasons, I would prefer to use the native OS package manager, rather than a package management system built-in to and only useful for one specific software tool. Then maybe reconsider declaring yourself disappointed -others do in fact (attempt to) sink their teeth into solving the actual problem, so that you can sleep at night without having to worry whether there is a new problem on the horizon. That said, before such aforementioned work is actually done, chances are this package will not be included in the regular Fedora distribution or EPEL add-on repository. Why does this have no chance of being included in a RedHat distribution? Is it a licensing issue or something else? I said Fedora distribution and EPEL add-on repository, and I did not say Red Hat distribution. These are completely different. The Fedora Project will not accept it as part of it's Fedora distribution or EPEL add-on repository, and Red Hat can do as it wishes -however it is still very much unlikely they'll ship it as it is. As to the reason this package is not / can not / will not be included; Please read the comments in this bug/review request. Long story short, Passenger ships a forked version of the C++ Boost libraries -and lags behind a dozen versions or so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #59 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2010-08-22 15:22:54 EDT --- You can only be as disappointed as much as you're willing to sink your teeth into solving the actual problems stated above. That said, before such aforementioned work is actually done, chances are this package will not be included in the regular Fedora distribution or EPEL add-on repository. That said, there are packages; http://mirror.nl.ergo-project.org/repositories/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #60 from Jason Smith smit...@bnl.gov 2010-08-22 16:39:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #59) You can only be as disappointed as much as you're willing to sink your teeth into solving the actual problems stated above. That would be very difficult since I know absolutely nothing about ruby. My only interest is in setting up a scalable puppet system and as a sysadmin, for obvious reasons, I would prefer to use the native OS package manager, rather than a package management system built-in to and only useful for one specific software tool. That said, before such aforementioned work is actually done, chances are this package will not be included in the regular Fedora distribution or EPEL add-on repository. Why does this have no chance of being included in a RedHat distribution? Is it a licensing issue or something else? That said, there are packages; http://mirror.nl.ergo-project.org/repositories/ Thanks, I will take a look at this next week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 Jason Smith smit...@bnl.gov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||smit...@bnl.gov --- Comment #58 from Jason Smith smit...@bnl.gov 2010-08-21 15:20:16 EDT --- Is there any chance that this will ever get packaged into an rpm? It is disappointing that there are packages for Ubuntu but not for RedHat. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #56 from Michael Stahnke mastah...@gmail.com 2010-04-16 17:37:06 EDT --- And now? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #57 from Hongli Lai hongli...@gmail.com 2010-04-16 18:40:30 EDT --- Right now I'm working on a client project with a tight deadline. Now, since this issue has been opened for about a year now I'll just be honest with you. As part of a bootstrapping company I find it very hard to invest time in getting my changes merged upstream. You mentioned that by submitting changes upstream it'll alleviate myself of having to maintain the changes. This is correct, but the flip side of the coin is that I'll have to get the changes accepted in the first place. Some of the changes we made to Boost are quite intrusive and change source and binary compatibility (we've modified some basic classes to derive from classes in our own library, for example) and getting all changes accepted into Boost will be a long, hard process. So what's easier, maintaining the changes ourselves or going through the trouble of submitting the changes upstream? I still think the former is easier. Debian is already packaging Phusion Passenger and they know about our usage of Boost. We already have contacts with people who are willing to maintain third party yum repositories. Unlike the official Fedora repository, these third party repositories can collaborate closely with us and won't lag behind official releases for weeks or months. So all in all I do not see any benefits in getting the Boost changes submitted upstream; in fact, I only see drawbacks. If you want to do it I won't stop you, but without some sort of financial compensation for my time I won't do it. I have to work to pay for my food after all. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
