At 10:41 19/10/1999 +0200, Stas Bekman wrote:
>That makes sense. But you should understand my motives for moving to
>modperl.sourcegarden.org. Otherwise there was no reason not do everything
>at perl.apache.org.
>
>So, perl.apache.org is just a VH at apache.org. You have almost no ability
>to add components to the system, and of course no root access. Installing
>mod_perl, mysql, modules is absolutely possible technically, but in
>reality it isn't, because no matter whether you have a root access or not,
>the resources are limited... I guess other resources to...
Aha, now I see much more clearly. I had thought about that, but had pushed
it to the back of my brain as a problem that could be solved when time came
to go live. I have a server myself, and though I probably couldn't get
approval to open it to others I can do pretty much what I want as long as
I'm the one doing it (or if others modify anything themselves, it's through
cvs or ftp, just no shell). I guess I'm not the only one to be able to
provide such facilities so I thought of all us people some solution would
be possible. After all, mod_perl attracts many people that have their own
servers (as opposed to just having an account), and perl.apache.org could
probably point to another server.
But if we can't, then we might be indeed in trouble and I was wrong putting
it in the back of my mind. What do you think ?
>For me as of this moment perl.apache.org is a gopher site (remember that
>name?), with links for downloading docs and mod_perl. And that's not far
>from truth. If we succeed to revive perl.apache.org to make it a dynamic
>site, I don't see any reason to have all the functionality we wanted to
>add to SourceGarden there. Our main goal is different - a greenhouse for
>mod_perl sw.
I agree. Well, depending on the content if we can't have enough access at
perl.apache.org there is still the solution to generate it statically and
commit it to cvs automatically. And what can't fit into that scheme would
go to sourcegarden, which is not a bad solution at all, I just find that it
would be a pity to have such technical constraints on the way
functionality/content is distributed between the sister-sites. Ideally we
wouldn't have to take anything else than the actual content into account.
I might look into the possibility of adding a few ssh accounts to our
server if I can get approval on this.
>> I might be wrong too, otherwise I probably wouldn't bother discussing these
>> projects :-) Your thoughts are very far from deconstructive to say the
>> least, and I hope mine aren't either. If they sound like they are, I've
>> probably misexpressed myself.
>
>Argh... Just wanted to keep your spirit up :)
You did, and you do ;-)
>> PS: maybe we should take this discussion to the mod-cvs list ?
>
>The problem is that not many people are subscribed on this list and I
>still beleive that more people might be interested in providing a
>feedback. As long as we keep [SITE] token in the subject I think it can be
>easily discarded by uninterested folks. Correct me if I'm wrong...
I think you're right, I was just asking out of curtesy (in case there are
too many people around that really don't care).
.Robin
"What I like about deadlines is the lovely whooshing sound they make as
they rush past." --Douglas Adams
