From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-webteam/2011-January/000134.html | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-webteam/2011-January/000134.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-webteam/2011-January/000134.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-webteam/2011-January/000134.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-webteam/2011-January/000134.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a231225fa --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-webteam/2011-January/000134.html @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ + + + + [Mageia-webteam] Initial hosting requirements for maintainers db + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-webteam] Initial hosting requirements for maintainers db

+ Romain d'Alverny + rdalverny at gmail.com +
+ Wed Jan 12 10:36:55 CET 2011 +

+
+ +
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 02:36, Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
+> Le mardi 11 janvier 2011 à 23:07 +0000, Kosmas Chatzimichalis a écrit :
+>> The initial requirements for installing the maintainers db in the
+>> mageia server are: [...]
+>> 1. RVM (Ruby version manager)
+>
+> From what I know, that would likely mean compiling our own ruby version
+> on the server, using its own separate set of gems. In term of work, it
+> would like adding a specific chroot, or a special vm of a different
+> distribution just to host the application. ( different distribution
+> since that would be totally unintegrated with the rest of the servers )
+
+What's the possible alternative?
+
+>> 2. Rubygems (1.3.7)
+>> 3. Rails (3.0.3)
+>
+> [...] This would mean for the moment rails 2.3.10
+> and ruby-RubyGems 1.3.5.
+
+Kosmas, can you backport your app to these versions?
+
+> Moreover, using distribution rpm give everybody the same set of module
+> to work with, if the need to host/develop multiple rails applications
+> arise ( and I think we cannot exclude this possibility ) without having
+> to have 1 set of gems per application. And again, we will not need to
+> handle security ourself ( or at least, no need to do the hard work as
+> this is the goal of the security team ).
+
+What about seeing with ruby packagers about this? (Kosmas?)
+
+>> 5. Passenger (Apache mod_rails)
+>
+> As I told in my answer on the git topic, could we avoid using passenger,
+> and switch to fastcgi ?
+
+Kosmas, can you check this?
+
+
+Cheers,
+
+Romain
+
+ + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-webteam +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1