Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:24:42 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Silver <dsilver@quantified.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: New port question Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112181202090.13701-100000@danzig.sd.quantified.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello -
As a FBSD admin of many machines I have fortunately finally figured out
the power of the ports collection. I just finished reading the porting
handbook because we would like to make our software, Urchin 3, available
under the ports area. However, our software does not fit into the BSD
paradigm of putting things in /usr/local/{sbin,etc,cgi-bin}.
Urchin 3 is analyzes web server log files (Apache, IIS, Iplanet,etc) for
numerous different configurations (single-site, multiple-home, or a
shared, i.e. many sites on a single box). In order to achieve simplicity
and reduce file/disk usage, we *had* to follow this convention:
Install urchin anywhere, which will have these files:
parent/ (e.g. /usr/local/Urchin)
ugroups/
default/
languages/
other files
webmaster/
languages/
other files
uicons/
default/
SysAdmin_Guide.pdf
urchin (binary)
urchin.cgi (cgi binary)
config.sample
README
ReleaseNotes
Version
When 'urchin' runs, it reads the config file (it looks in it's current
directory), and determines which websites needs reporting on. As it reads
through the logfile, it creates its database files in each website's
ReportDirectory (Apache style). It then symlinks urchin.cgi as index.cgi,
and also the uicons/ugroups directories. For example:
> ll /www/urchin/report/
total 8
drwxrwxr-x 3 root www 512 Dec 5 15:32 ./
drwxrwxr-x 27 root www 1024 Dec 17 14:33 ../
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root www 29 Dec 5 15:32 index.cgi@ -> /usr/local/urchin3/urchin.cgi
drwxrwxr-x 2 root www 1536 Dec 5 15:32 udata/
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root www 27 Dec 5 15:32 ugroups@ -> /usr/local/urchin3/ugroups/
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root www 26 Dec 5 15:32 uicons@ -> /usr/local/urchin3/uicons/
Due to the symlink nature of how 'urchin.cgi' needs things, it is not
feasable to have things scattered around the /usr/local area. I know the
ports collection is suppose to follow the BSD paradigm of /usr/local/{*},
but for our software that was impossible to follow. Does this mean we
should not investigate having a ports area available -- which we would
really like to offer since it's a great way to manage software.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doug Silver
619 235-2665
Network Manager
Quantified Systems, Inc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.21.0112181202090.13701-100000>