There are a number of gwebcache'ing programs on the net, and I packaged the 3 more popular ones. I already had submitted the standard gwebcache in bug #62964 but recenly have added phpgnucacheii and perlgcache. Could the web-apps herd please review all of these before I add them to portage? WARNING TO ALL USERS WANTING TO TRY THIS PACKAGE: system stats: 300 MHz 64 MB ram results: gwebcache- computer freezes after 8 hours of running phpgnucacheii- computer freezes after 17 hours perlgcache- average of 8% idle processes, with a load average of 15, but can run full time. Due to the nature of these web-based programs, I would like to get the opinion of the community before putting them into portage. They basically are used in the gnutella and MUTE p2p networks in keeping a list of hosts to connect to.
- gwebcache looks fine, although ${FILESDIR} contains a reconfig script, which isn't referenced in the ebuild. - all 3 ebuilds modify files in the reconfig hook. Those files will not be removed by portage when emerge -C is called. Consider adding a "clean" part to the hook (see the manpage) where appropriate. - consider marking the .htaccess file as webapp_configfile - personally, i'd like a better/more descriptive warning, but that's just me. These are relatively minor things, so good work.
sorry, the reconfig hook for gwebcache was old and I just hadn't removed it yet. The .htaccess file in phpgnucacheii is now a webapp_configfile and its install hook is nonexistent. perlgcache's install hook really only makes the data directory world writeable, and that data directory needs to be kept because if someone is doing a package upgrade, they will want to keep the data they had before. Should it still have the clean option to remove this directory? On the more descriptive warning, what should be changed/added and where? Thanks for the input, I appreciate your quick replies :).
Now in portage :-D.
