forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Juan Jose Pablos <>
Subject Re: Updating Forrest for debian, packaging questions
Date Tue, 04 Jan 2005 07:29:21 GMT
Marcus Crafter wrote:

> From my first inspections, it seems that Forrest is now with the 
> source and binary archive acting as one? ie. with run scripts 
> referencing files that in src/ directories and so forth. Is this the 
> case? Doing a ./ dist seems to make a copy of the 
> apache-forrest-0.6 directory under build/dist completely.
There is another restructure in the svn, so I think that maybe would be 
worth to try to use the development version.
Maybe we can add the debian stuff under whiteboard/debian

> Obviously in Forrest's case, much of the source can be considered 
> binary content verbatim (eg. stylesheets, etc), but things like java 
> source, etc, normally wouldn't be bundled in a Debian binary package - 
> so I was wondering if there was a list (or if someone might be able to 
> list) the directories in the forrest.tgz that are required for running 
> Forrest, as opposed to purely source code used for building it? Any 
> thoughts there at all?

There were suggestions from some people that wanted just  the software 
to run. With the plugin effort forrest could be split in more packages.

> From anywhere on the system, /usr/bin/forrest would use the single 
> installation for all users.
> This behaviour seems to have changed somewhat from what I can tell - 
> as this approach currently fails with a:
> ERROR   2005-01-03 17:02:03.791 [        ] (): Directory '.' is not 
> readable/writable
> Exception in thread "main" Directory '.' is not 
> readable/writable
>         at 
> org.apache.cocoon.bean.CocoonWrapper.getDir(
>         at 
> org.apache.cocoon.bean.CocoonWrapper.initialize(
>         at 
> org.apache.cocoon.bean.CocoonBean.initialize(
>         at org.apache.cocoon.Main.main(
I am pretty sure that this was a cocoon problem and it has been fixed. I 
have not been able to find the mails, but I am sure that it has been 
fixed on the development version.

> Is a 'single forrest installation' still intended to work ok, or 
> should each user actually be working with their own copy of forrest 
> locally?

I think that it should be a single forrest instalation, we have the 
forrest.home and the project.home for this.

> Hope this isn't too much off the bat - just trying to learn as much as 
> I can about how Forrest is intended to run and be installed so I can 
> make the package the best as possible.
no problem, personaly I like debian a lot, I use for everything, and I 
think that this would help  forrest to be more standard from the O.S. POV.


View raw message