Installed viewvc 1.0 for sourceware

Installed viewvc 1.0 for sourceware

[Daniel Berlin]

I installed viewvc 1.0.0 for sourceware and gcc in
/usr/local/viewvc/{sourceware,gcc}.

The only difference is in the config files ATM.

From an admin perspective, gcc.gnu.org's will only display the gcc repo,
sourceware.org will display all repos in /svn.

sourceware.org's has root-as-component enabled, so
http://sourceware.org/viewvc/kawa/

will give you the kawa repo.

The rest of the differences are minor (default diff format, etc).

Both /viewvc and /viewcvs will work as urls.

There was no obvious way to only have one copy without hacking up the
source to viewvc, which kinda defeats the purpose of installing pristine
copies.

--Dan

fcgi? (was Re: Installed viewvc 1.0 for sourceware)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:00:13PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>I installed viewvc 1.0.0 for sourceware and gcc in
>/usr/local/viewvc/{sourceware,gcc}.
>
>The only difference is in the config files ATM.
>
From an admin perspective, gcc.gnu.org's will only display the gcc repo,
>sourceware.org will display all repos in /svn.
>
>sourceware.org's has root-as-component enabled, so
>http://sourceware.org/viewvc/kawa/
>
>will give you the kawa repo.
>
>The rest of the differences are minor (default diff format, etc).
>
>Both /viewvc and /viewcvs will work as urls.
>
>There was no obvious way to only have one copy without hacking up the
>source to viewvc, which kinda defeats the purpose of installing pristine
>copies.

Is this why we're running an "fcgi" process on sourceware now?  I don't
remember that running before and this binary doesn't seem to be installed
via rpm so I can't easily see what it is.

cgf

Re: fcgi? (was Re: Installed viewvc 1.0 for sourceware)

[Daniel Berlin]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:00:13PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> I installed viewvc 1.0.0 for sourceware and gcc in
>> /usr/local/viewvc/{sourceware,gcc}.
>>
>> The only difference is in the config files ATM.
>>
>From an admin perspective, gcc.gnu.org's will only display the gcc repo,
>> sourceware.org will display all repos in /svn.
>>
>> sourceware.org's has root-as-component enabled, so
>> http://sourceware.org/viewvc/kawa/
>>
>> will give you the kawa repo.
>>
>> The rest of the differences are minor (default diff format, etc).
>>
>> Both /viewvc and /viewcvs will work as urls.
>>
>> There was no obvious way to only have one copy without hacking up the
>> source to viewvc, which kinda defeats the purpose of installing pristine
>> copies.
> 
> Is this why we're running an "fcgi" process on sourceware now?  

No, that is about to be for moinmoin, i wanted to test it and make sure
everything worked okay before i said anything.

Generally, fastcgi (which is what the fcgi process is from) memory and
usage is easier to control than mod_python (which runs directly in process).


> I don't
> remember that running before and this binary doesn't seem to be installed
> via rpm so I can't easily see what it is.

I searched hi and lo for a mod_fastcgi rpm for rhel4, but couldn't find one.

If you can find one, i'm happy to use it!