forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcus Crafter <craft...@managesoft.com>
Subject Re: Updating Forrest for debian, packaging questions
Date Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:53:43 GMT
Hi Cheche,

Juan Jose Pablos 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 ./build.sh 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.

Ok, thanks for the heads up about that. Is there perhaps an estimate 
timeline for the next Forrest release at all? Just wondering as 
generally Debian includes released software - but there has been 
exceptions to this.

> Maybe we can add the debian stuff under whiteboard/debian

Sure, I'd be happy to have the debian control files etc in SVN assuming 
it's ok with everyone else. I'm totally happy with what the 
community/group, would like to do.

>>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.

Ok. The plugin effort sounds great :)

> 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.

Cool - Upayavira just confirmed it for us so that's good news.

>>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.

Cool, I agree - having a single installation across multiple users would 
be ideal as well.

>>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.

Glad to come across another happy Debian user :)

Thanks for your help - much appreciated :)

Cheers,

Marcus

-- 
         .....
      ,,$$$$$$$$$,      Marcus Crafter
     ;$'      '$$$$:    Computer Systems Engineer
     $:         $$$$:   ManageSoft Corporation
      $       o_)$$$:   Frankfurt am Main, Germany
      ;$,    _/\ &&:'
        '     /( &&&
            \_&&&&'
           &&&&.
     &&&&&&&:

Mime
View raw message