[Savannah-hackers] Re: The Linux Kernel/BitKeeper Issue and how to Resolve It

[Mathieu Roy]

Shlomi Fish <address@hidden> said:

> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> >     > Would you like to do the work of making some other VC system run on
> >     > savannah.gnu.org?
> >
> >     With pleasure! But I'll need ssh access to the system, and a path where 
> > I
> >     can install Apache 2.0, libdb-4.0, and Subversion itself system-wide.
> >
> > Savannah is our CVS hosting site.  It is already running Apache and
> > many other things.  You can't expect to install some other VC system
> > there as if you were operating on a blank machine!  You would have
> > to study the software that is running there now, and figure out how
> > to change it to support multiple VC systems.
> >
> 
> I know that. What I did on my workstations is run Apache 2.0 on a
> different port (8080). I can install db-4.0 on a dedicated path (say
> /usr/local/apps/db-4.0/ ) and then link Apache 2.0 against it and again
> install under a different path, and configure it to run under different
> HTTP and HTTPS ports that usual. Then, I can install subversion linked
> against the db 4.0 and compiled to run with this apache.

I do not get why you need apache 2.0.

But:

- We currently run apache-ssl 1.3 and by reading some mails about Apache
2.x, it seems un unmature product, according apparently to his own
authors. 

- It's generally a bad idea to install concurrent version off the same
software on a server.

- We do not install packages from sources on Savannah (on only on
very special cases). It's a bad idea to forget to rely on Debian
maintainers that generally do good job... And a bad idea to forget
that a software like Apache will need to be updated easily once
security holes will be found (and it will happens).

And finally, Subversion run Debian stable, and since it's a production
server, we should keep it that way.

So personally, I'm not agree with your plans. A service proposed on
Savannah should be dependant only on production/mature softwares, and
db4 and apache 2 does not fit to this description. 

But it's up to Loic to make a decision.


> > It is not clear that we want to use Subversion.  We might rather
> > use Aegis and/or Arch.  They are both GPL-covered, and we prefer
> > to use GPL-covered software rather than non-GPL-covered free
> > software when given the choice.
>
> Aegis needs to run as SUID-root, and some people may find its
> process counter-intuitive and an overkill for what they want to
> do. It is a complete SCM rather than a simple revision control
> system.
> 
> I installed Arch. As opposed to subversion it does not support file copies
> and furthermore, it is very slow to work with.
> 
> Subversion is fully free software, so I don't see a problem here. I
> believe most people accustomed to CVS will find it the most appealing.


Note that we refuse hosting project licensed with the apache style
license, for compatibilities with GPLed project issues, and subversion
use that license. 
 


Regards,

-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
 << Profile  << http://savannah.gnu.org/users/yeupou <<
 >> Homepage >> http://yeupou.coleumes.org           >>
 << GPG Key  << http://stock.coleumes.org/gpg        <<