Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <41D970E6.7090705@managesoft.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:20:54 +0100
From: Marcus Crafter <crafterm@managesoft.com>
Organization: ManageSoft Corporation
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Subject: Updating Forrest for debian, packaging questions
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi All,

Hope all is going well. Happy New Year to all. :)

After a nice weekend I thought I'd get started updating the Forrest 
Debian package from 0.5.1 to 0.6.

Yesdarday I downloaded the updated sources and saw that a few things had 
changed wrt. the build process and how Forrest is to be distributed.

 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.

Normally, Debian packages are split in 2, potentially more packages -> a 
source and binary package (perhaps multiple with software, 
documentation, etc), with the binary containing only whats needed to run 
the software, and the source package containing everything whats needed 
to reproduce the binary package/s.

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?

I've already done some playing with the package itself. The 0.5 version 
of the package installed Forrest to /usr/share/forrest (pretty much was 
the contents of the build directory from a ./build.sh dist from memory).

 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" java.io.IOException: Directory '.' is not 
readable/writable
         at 
org.apache.cocoon.bean.CocoonWrapper.getDir(CocoonWrapper.java:253)
         at 
org.apache.cocoon.bean.CocoonWrapper.initialize(CocoonWrapper.java:106)
         at org.apache.cocoon.bean.CocoonBean.initialize(CocoonBean.java:98)
         at org.apache.cocoon.Main.main(Main.java:320)

after attempting to generate a site.

The directory is:

       <java classname="org.apache.cocoon.Main"
         fork="true"
**      dir="${forrest.home}/context"
         maxmemory="${forrest.maxmemory}"

ie. ${forrest.home}/context, from what I can tell,

This at the moment resovles to /usr/share/forrest/src/core/context which 
is normally not writable by users (eg. root.root ownership, 755 dir perms).

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

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.

Hope everyone has a nice evening.

Cheers,

Marcus


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