Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:08:27 -0500 From: Brent Verner <brent@rcfile.org> To: Thomas Duffey <tduffey@homeboyz.org> Cc: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/75348: Tomcat port overwrites server.xml config file Message-ID: <20041222010827.GA17485@rcfile.org> In-Reply-To: <41C8BDBC.4050801@homeboyz.org> References: <200412211740.iBLHeUcw090127@freefall.freebsd.org> <20041221184340.GA14170@rcfile.org> <37919c31041221110775dc0396@mail.gmail.com> <20041221193221.GA14792@rcfile.org> <41C87FC4.4070803@homeboyz.org> <20041221234347.GA16825@rcfile.org> <41C8BDBC.4050801@homeboyz.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[2004-12-21 18:20] Thomas Duffey said:
| Hi Brent,
Hi Thomas,
| > ${SITE_BASE}/tomcat4
| > ${SITE_BASE}/tomcat41
| > ${SITE_BASE}/tomcat5
| >
| >where SITE_BASE could default to something like
| >/usr/local/www-java or /usr/local/www/catalina-base.
| >
| >
| I'm not sure I follow you. Are you trying to declare a default location
| for individual "instances" of specific versions of Tomcat?
I think that's what I intend. I guess what I was saying
is that, instead of CATALINA_BASE being inside of the tomcat
installation directory, the user-configured files used by
each tomcat port installation be outside of that tomcat's
installation directory. This protects them from being
overwritten when the port is upgraded. That's really all.
| When I build a Tomcat port, then, would I need to build/install it once
| for each instance? Suppose I have three instances, would I need to do:
|
| # CATALINA_BASE=/home/appserver1/tomcat make && make install
| # CATALINA_BASE=/home/appserver2/tomcat make && make install
| # CATALINA_BASE=/home/appserver3/tomcat make && make install
I didn't envision this necessarily. I imagined more that
make install would only (once per ${PKGORIGIN}) create a
CATALINA_BASE directory structure used by that port's default
instance. If an administrator, like in your case, wanted to
create multiple instances, they would do that outside of the
port, and the port would know nothing about it. I don't think
what I've proposed would affect what you are doing in any way.
It would only do something similar to what you are doing for
a single default tomcat instance (to sidestep the configuration
squashing upgrades) per tomcat port ${PKGORIGIN}. A new
CATALINA_BASE directory would only be created when a port is
installed from a new ${PKGORIGIN} -- an upgrade of tomcat from
5.0.25 to 5.0.29 would not create a new CATALINA_BASE dir.
Only when the port ${PKGORIGIN} changed from www/jakarta-tomcat5
to www/jakarta-tomcat51 would a new CATALINA_BASE directory
be created by the port. Of course, this would require that all
versions of tomcat installed from a given ${PKGORIGIN} be
compatible, but I think that is a reasonable constraint.
The only thing this approach would change is where the
configuration and files for the default instance are
located. Instead of /usr/local/jakarta-tomcatN*/, the
default instance would run from /usr/local/elsewhere/tomcatN*/.
| Whatever you come up with, please keep things simple for those of us who
| expect the port to install a standard Tomcat setup, including the latest
| default configuration files.
I hope I'm not coming up with this :-) I would just like to
see the itches in freebsd's tomcat ports scratched. I'm just
throwing ideas about. If we decide on a best way to fix the(se)
port(s), maybe someone will implement it. If not, I may try
to find time to do it, but my time get pretty scarce at times :-\
Thanks for your comments. If this is, again, unclear, let me
know and I'll try again. If this is all pointless discussion,
the lists readership could let me know that, too :-)
cheers.
Brent
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041222010827.GA17485>