[RFD] Gitweb: Source configuration from file separate from the CGI script

[RFD] Gitweb: Source configuration from file separate from the CGI script

[Drew Northup]

I just upgraded my Gitweb package (I'm testing the EPEL RHEL5 latest;
I'm not too happy with them tweaking the paths) and as I should have
expected all of my Gitweb configuration is now gone. Not that it's a big
deal to put it back, but we should probably give the option of keeping
that configuration information separate from the executable in my
opinion.
Anybody else want to speak up with respect to this? I have some idea
what a prospective patch would look like, but I'd like to hear from
people before putting it together (and to let it solidify in my head for
a while first as well).

-- 
-Drew Northup
________________________________________________
"As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?"
-John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59

Re: [RFD] Gitweb: Source configuration from file separate from the CGI script

[Jonathan Nieder]

Hi,

Drew Northup wrote:

> I just upgraded my Gitweb package (I'm testing the EPEL RHEL5 latest;
> I'm not too happy with them tweaking the paths) and as I should have
> expected all of my Gitweb configuration is now gone.

In gitweb/README, I see:

| You can adjust gitweb behaviour using the file specified in `GITWEB_CONFIG`
| (defaults to 'gitweb_config.perl' in the same directory as the CGI), and
| as a fallback `GITWEB_CONFIG_SYSTEM` (defaults to /etc/gitweb.conf).

Hope that helps,
Jonathan

Re: [RFD] Gitweb: Source configuration from file separate from the CGI script

[Drew Northup]

On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 09:34 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Drew Northup wrote:
> 
> > I just upgraded my Gitweb package (I'm testing the EPEL RHEL5 latest;
> > I'm not too happy with them tweaking the paths) and as I should have
> > expected all of my Gitweb configuration is now gone.
> 
> In gitweb/README, I see:
> 
> | You can adjust gitweb behaviour using the file specified in `GITWEB_CONFIG`
> | (defaults to 'gitweb_config.perl' in the same directory as the CGI), and
> | as a fallback `GITWEB_CONFIG_SYSTEM` (defaults to /etc/gitweb.conf).
> 
> Hope that helps,
> Jonathan

I apparently missed that. Alas, I didn't see it in the code when I was
setting my values so I assumed that it wasn't available. Perhaps we can
make this a little more obvious? I'll go try that out and see if I can
make it break--putting it in the same directory definitely wouldn't have
helped this time.

-- 
-Drew Northup
________________________________________________
"As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?"
-John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59

Re: [RFD] Gitweb: Source configuration from file separate from the CGI script

[Jakub Narebski]

Drew Northup <drew.northup@maine.edu> writes:
> On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 09:34 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Drew Northup wrote:
> > 
> > > I just upgraded my Gitweb package (I'm testing the EPEL RHEL5 latest;
> > > I'm not too happy with them tweaking the paths) and as I should have
> > > expected all of my Gitweb configuration is now gone.

We discourage configuring gitweb by editing generated gitweb.cgi file
for a long, long time, at least since v1.4.2-rc2-102-gc8d138a (gitweb:
optionally read config from GITWEB_CONFIG, 2006-08-02).  It is
described in gitweb/README since v1.4.3-rc1-7-g45a3b12 (gitweb:
Document features better, 2006-10-07).

> > 
> > In gitweb/README, I see:

Not only gitweb/README; in gitweb.cgi that you are, I suppose,
editing, you have $GITWEB_CONFIG mentioned 25 times as a place
to override default configuration.

> > 
> > | You can adjust gitweb behaviour using the file specified in `GITWEB_CONFIG`
> > | (defaults to 'gitweb_config.perl' in the same directory as the CGI), and
> > | as a fallback `GITWEB_CONFIG_SYSTEM` (defaults to /etc/gitweb.conf).
> 
> I apparently missed that. Alas, I didn't see it in the code when I was
> setting my values so I assumed that it wasn't available.

$GITWEB_CONFIG is mentioned 25 times in gitweb source; is it not enough?

> Perhaps we can make this a little more obvious?

How can we make it more obvious?  gitweb/INSTALL has "Build time
configuration" just below instruction on how to build it, and it
mentions "How to configure gitweb for your local system" section in
gitweb/README in very first line of this section.

> I'll go try that out and see if I can make it break--putting it in
> the same directory definitely wouldn't have helped this time.

First, as Jonathan cited, you can by default beside
'gitweb_config.perl' in the same directory as the CGI use '
/etc/gitweb.conf' file.

Second, you can configure where GITWEB_CONFIG and GITWEB_CONFIG_SYSTEM
are to be found dusing build time, e.g.

  $ make GITWEB_CONFIG_SYSTEM=/etc/gitweb/gitweb_config.perl \
         install-gitweb

Third, you can override where gitweb searches for its config files
using GITWEB_CONFIG and/or GITWEB_CONFIG_SYSTEM configuration
variables; quite useful for debugging gitweb, and for gitweb tests in
git.git repository.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Re: [RFD] Gitweb: Source configuration from file separate from the CGI script

[Jakub Narebski]

Drew Northup wrote:

> I'm obviously a moron because I didn't to bother to scroll through the
> whole thing first. I'm just not going to fight with you.
> I'm going to crawl back under my rock now.

I came to strong; I am very, very sorry about that.  We are really
interested how we can make existence and use of gitweb config file
more obvious.

The "Build time configuration" section in gitweb/INSTALL is 
unfortunately after the one-page fold, so that's probably why
you didn't notice that.  It was probably pushed out by changes
in previous section.

What were your changes to gitweb.cgi script, i.e. where in gitweb
sources we should add notification about build time and runtime
gitweb configuration?

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland

Re: [RFD] Gitweb: Source configuration from file separate from the CGI script

[Drew Northup]

On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 16:41 +0100, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> Drew Northup wrote:
> 
> > I'm obviously a moron because I didn't to bother to scroll through the
> > whole thing first. I'm just not going to fight with you.
> > I'm going to crawl back under my rock now.
> 
> I came to strong; I am very, very sorry about that.  We are really
> interested how we can make existence and use of gitweb config file
> more obvious.
> 
> The "Build time configuration" section in gitweb/INSTALL is 
> unfortunately after the one-page fold, so that's probably why
> you didn't notice that.  It was probably pushed out by changes
> in previous section.
> 
> What were your changes to gitweb.cgi script, i.e. where in gitweb
> sources we should add notification about build time and runtime
> gitweb configuration?

Jakub,
I'll have another look soon, perhaps this weekend depending on when I'm
done my other obligations. 
At the very least I'm considering making a man page for the
configuration file. I don't know off-hand how much that will be
seemingly repetitive of the README, but I suspect I'm not the only one
who often finds monolithic files tucked away in /usr/share/doc (/usr/doc
for some systems) a daunting reading prospect when I really don't care
about the project history since 1937 (which, all too often, was the
apparent perspective taken when writing the README). I don't think the
gitweb README rises quite to that level, but I do think that benefit may
be drawn from doing to it what has been proposed for the rest of
gitweb--making it into smaller digestible chunks. I don't plan on
bothering anybody here about that until I've had a chance to make a mess
in my own repo hacking it to pieces for a while.

-- 
-Drew Northup
________________________________________________
"As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?"
-John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59

Re: [RFD] Gitweb: Source configuration from file separate from the CGI script

[Todd Zullinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1222 bytes --]

Hi Drew,

Drew Northup wrote:
> At the very least I'm considering making a man page for the
> configuration file. I don't know off-hand how much that will be
> seemingly repetitive of the README, but I suspect I'm not the only
> one who often finds monolithic files tucked away in /usr/share/doc
> (/usr/doc for some systems) a daunting reading prospect
[...]

FWIW, with git-1.7.4.1 in EPEL we now include a commented
/etc/gitweb.conf in the package.  This wasn't present in the very old
1.5.5.6 we had in EPEL until recently.  This config file doesn't list
all the available options, but it does point to the README and INSTALL
files for further help.

(Also worth noting is that the package was in the epel-testing
repository for 3 weeks and was announced on both epel-devel and
epel-announce to try and get testing from folks before pushing it
stable.  Sadly, very few folks do so, and issues are sometimes not
caught.)

Sorry if the update caused you trouble.

-- 
Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Curiosity killed the cat, but for awhile I was a suspect.
    -- Steven Wright


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 542 bytes --]

Re: [RFD] Gitweb: Source configuration from file separate from the CGI script

[Drew Northup]

On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 10:51 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Hi Drew,
> 
> Drew Northup wrote:
> > At the very least I'm considering making a man page for the
> > configuration file. I don't know off-hand how much that will be
> > seemingly repetitive of the README, but I suspect I'm not the only
> > one who often finds monolithic files tucked away in /usr/share/doc
> > (/usr/doc for some systems) a daunting reading prospect
> [...]
> 
> FWIW, with git-1.7.4.1 in EPEL we now include a commented
> /etc/gitweb.conf in the package.  This wasn't present in the very old
> 1.5.5.6 we had in EPEL until recently.  This config file doesn't list
> all the available options, but it does point to the README and INSTALL
> files for further help.

I did find that following Jonathan's prompting. I hadn't been using the
EPEL git packages but had been building my own. Alas I also haven't
figured out yet how to auto-exclude individual package sets from upgrade
via channel (something for a discussion somewhere else--when I have time
to mess with it) and I missed the new EPEL ones in the list. (It's my
test/dev box so I let it run packages there for a while first before
rolling them out elsewhere.)

> (Also worth noting is that the package was in the epel-testing
> repository for 3 weeks and was announced on both epel-devel and
> epel-announce to try and get testing from folks before pushing it
> stable.  Sadly, very few folks do so, and issues are sometimes not
> caught.)
> 
> Sorry if the update caused you trouble.

The main thing that annoyed me was that EPEL and git's "make rpm" seem
to still have very different ideas about where stuff belongs on a
machine. I wish I had more time to read the "epel-testing" release
notes, but that wouldn't have actually helped me in this case.

-- 
-Drew Northup
________________________________________________
"As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?"
-John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59

Re: [RFD] Gitweb: Source configuration from file separate from the CGI script

[Todd Zullinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1076 bytes --]

Drew Northup wrote:
> The main thing that annoyed me was that EPEL and git's "make rpm"
> seem to still have very different ideas about where stuff belongs on
> a machine. I wish I had more time to read the "epel-testing" release
> notes, but that wouldn't have actually helped me in this case.

Yeah, for the EPEL-5 packages, we chose to keep gitexecdir = /usr/bin,
so that people updating wouldn't find any scripts broken by the change
to /usr/libexec/git-core.  This should be good for folks updating from
older EPEL packages but not as hot for anyone that had rolled their
own from git.git, unfortunately.  On the upside, I think that should
affect relatively few commands.  If you have particular examples,
perhaps they are things we can provide better work-arounds for in the
EPEL packages?

-- 
Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The worth of a state, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals
composing it.
    -- John Stuart Mill


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 542 bytes --]

Re: [RFD] Gitweb: Source configuration from file separate from the CGI script

[Jonathan Nieder]

Drew Northup wrote:

> At the very least I'm considering making a man page for the
> configuration file. I don't know off-hand how much that will be
> seemingly repetitive of the README, but I suspect I'm not the only one
> who often finds monolithic files tucked away in /usr/share/doc

Yes, please!  I'd say, beyond that: please feel free to replace large
chunks of the README with "See the manpage (or <source file for the
manpage>) for further information.".

Happily,
Jonathan

Re: [RFD] Gitweb: Source configuration from file separate from the CGI script

[Matt Ryan]

Hey, I don't mean to contribute to the confusion. 
But, after adding a gitweb_config.perl in the 
same directory as the cgi I haven't seen all the 
changes take place. I tried something simple to start like so:

$feature{'blame'}{'override'} = [1];
$feature{'forks'}{'default'} = [1];
$feature{'avatar'}{'default'} = ['gravatar'];

Gravtar is now working, but I haven't seen 
the blame or forks added. Any help would be appreciated, 
thanks!

Re: [RFD] Gitweb: Source configuration from file separate from the CGI script

[Jakub Narebski]

Matt Ryan <matt@devaldez.com> writes:

> Hey, I don't mean to contribute to the confusion. 
> But, after adding a gitweb_config.perl in the 
> same directory as the cgi I haven't seen all the 
> changes take place. I tried something simple to start like so:
> 
> $feature{'blame'}{'override'} = [1];

This doesn't turn on 'blame' feature, but only allows override with
per-repository gitweb.blame repository configuration variable.

You probably wanted to use 'default', not 'override' here.

> $feature{'forks'}{'default'} = [1];

As you can read in comments, this is about very specific layout of
repositories, namely that forks of 'path/to/repo.git' are all
somewhere below 'path/to/repo' directory.

If you don't have forks organized in such way, you wouldn't see
changes from this feature.

> $feature{'avatar'}{'default'} = ['gravatar'];

This requires that email addresses of authors, committers and taggers
have gravatar entry.  This means that you have to create "account" on
http://www.gravatar.com).

> 
> Gravtar is now working, but I haven't seen 
> the blame or forks added. Any help would be appreciated, 
> thanks!


Hope that helps.
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git