Re: [Savannah-hackers] Re: Gnatsweb and Savannah

[Hugo Gayosso]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


[ removed RMS and added system-hackers to recipient list ]

Yngve Svendsen <address@hidden> writes: 

> At 20:09 17.08.2001 -0400, Hugo Gayosso wrote:
> >We are already using GNATS 4, well, not really 4 because it hasn't
> >been released but a snapshot from CVS:
> >
> >ii  gnats          3.999.20010527 The GNU problem report management system 
> >(ce
> >ii  gnatsweb       3.113-13       Web interface to the GNU problem report 
> >mana
> 
> The Gnatsweb version number looks suspicious. If you are referring to
> the system running on fencepost, I just upgraded Gnatsweb there to
> 3.97.

Yes, that listing is from fencepost, those numbers come from Debian
packages, I did the installation myself (months ago).


> >We are using only one database, and we want to migrate to a
> >multi-database GNATS.  We were going to start the effort but we didn't
> >got farther than setting up a couple of extra databases for testing
> >purposes.
> 
> Are we talking one database per project here? If so, it looks like
> this is going to be a nice GNATS stress-test.

Yes, that is the idea, one database per project, so the projects
admins have full control of it without having the need of a central
GNATS admin, or jeopardizing the other projects' configuration.


> >Our current GNATS installation has been working in production mode
> >since then at least by the libc team.
> >
> >Gnatsweb has been in use too.
> 
> Will we be moving the system that's currently on fencepost to the main
> savannah machine, or is the system going to continue running on
> fencepost?

This hasn't been defined, currently the infrastructure is set up to
stay in fencepost, but maybe it would be a good idea to work in a
fresh new installation of GNATS on savannah, and once it is ready,
migrate the current database, etc from fencepost.

One thing to consider, though is that fencepost is our main mail
server, so maybe it is better to keep GNATS in fencepost and Gnatsweb
in savannah.


> I see one area which needs work, and that is account management.

Yes, account management should be fully integrated with Savannah.

> GNATS currently supports MD5 and plaintext, crypt support is coming
> -- we have a patch pending for that. Kerberos support hasn't been
> tested in ages and can't be assumed to work.

For Savannah, I think that we need to access MySQL to check for access
authorization.


> I assume you want to give project admins access to the admin
> interface that was developed some time ago.

I guess yes, that was why I asked in the gnats-devel mailing list
about an interface for GNATS administration some time ago.

> I haven't had time to look at it since it was submitted -- would you
> say that it's ready for production use, and how do you propose that
> we integrate GNATS accounts with the Savannah account system?

I have never seen it nor use it, so I can't really tell.

The way to integrate with Savannah, I think that it should be through
MySQL, because that's where the current user authentication for
Savannah is located.  (Am I right Loic??)


> By the way: The default Gnatsweb look is fairly different from
> Savannah's, but I assume that cosmetics is a fair bit down the list
> of priorities?

Yes, that can be worked up later.


> And one more thing: I think I'd need root access here and there to
> start putting the pieces of the puzzle together. I do consider
> myself low-risk, half a dozen years of sysadmin experience means
> I've seen most pitfalls -- and trodden in my fair share of them.

System Hackers?


Greetings,
- -- 
Hugo Gayosso
Support Free Software
Support the GNU Project 
http://www.gnu.org
http://wildebeest.myip.org/~gnu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7fzk2MNObVRBZveYRApIiAJ9YpCw6N9m43f3cpA1QQ+mAqiOeDwCfRC7z
+VP6FzaMoLmLXgRVA3LRWLQ=
=eXD8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----