Latest version of Gnus?

Latest version of Gnus?

[Tommy Kelly]

A new-ish user's experience of trying to figure out which version of
Gnus he has/should-have. (I'm trying to figure out if there's a more
up-to-date handling of nnimap out there). My emacs is a recent download
from http://emacsformacosx.com/: GNU Emacs 23.2.1 (x86_64-apple-darwin, NS apple-appkit-1038.29) of 2010-05-08 on black.local

- I start by checking my own version using 'gnus-version'. I'm assuming
  that since my emacs is fairly recent, so too should be my
  Gnus. gnus-version tells me I have 5.13. Slightly puzzling since I
  thought the numbering had switched down to 0.1 just after 5.10. Maybe
  5.13 is equivalent to 0.3? But even that sounds a bit old. Hmmm. Still
  early days though, so let's press on...
- I go to www.gnus.org to see what *is* the current version
- Wow, www.gnus.org appears to be a strange mix of *very* up to date
  recent code activity, and *very* ancient history. For example:
- Digging down into quimby I see mention of gnus-5.10, which is older
  than what I have 
- .../old has nothing newer than 2003
- .../development refers to stuff called ngnus which I later see is "Not
  Gnus", but then why is what I have in a recent version of emacs
  (23.2.1) using the pre-not-gnus numbering?
- history.html only seems to cover up to October 2000 (the start of
  Oort) and then points me to "the manual"
- I check the html version on the website -- but it looks pretty much
  like the info and I don't hold much hope of finding "The Version
  Number" there
- In distribution.html I see mention of "...using the bzr Emacs
  repository". I don't know what that is so:
- I google for "bzr Emacs" and teleport over to emacswiki.org
- Search for "gnus" in the Wiki search box and find
  http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/CategoryGnus 
- Get excited to see a heading of "Getting Gnus" but then get de-excited
  when I see there's no version numbers mentioned
- Back to look again at distribution.html. It is confusing (to me
  anyway). It suggests three places where Gnus lives. In the (x)emacs
  releases themselves; in "the bzr Emacs repository" for "more
  leading-edge versions" (although that's just a suggestions apparently);
  and then git for "total bleeding edge".
- OK, back to emacswiki again. I'll try more leading before I'm forced
  into total bleeding. But emacswiki offers instructions in cvs and arch
  -- nothing obvious to tell the version number. So I look into
  gnus.el in the cvs repo (at this stage I may still be a newbie, but
  I'm way beyond anything a casual *user* should be being expected to
  do, no?) and find a defconst of gnus-version-number -- the value is
  0.11. Sigh -- again, it looks like ngnus, and I still have this 5.13
  thing to deal with. Again, if 5.13 is really the same as 0.3, then it
  looks like I'm at least 8 versions back.
- Jump back to gmane in Gnus itself and look through the announce
  group. There I find a maze of tiny announces, all alike, showing how
  5.10 begat ngnus 0.0 but again that confuses because *I* have 5.13
- Look in my own copy of gnus.el to see if it gives any idea of how old
  version numbers are being mapped to new. Nopw. my defconst is to
  5.13. What *am* I using!?
- I try saying "plugh" and "xyzzy" but nothing happens. I'd
  happily throw a bird but there's none near to hand.

So:

1. gnus-version tells me I have 5.13. Is that the most recent stable
release (MRSR)?
2. If it's not, how do I get the MRSR? More to the point,
how do I get it and *know* that that's what I'm getting?
3. If 5.13 *is* the MRSR, why is it using the old numbering? 
4. What is the old-to-new version number mapping?

And then, the whole point of all of this:

5. Where is the most up to date handling of imap being done? If it's
something post-5.13, then where?

thanks,
Tommy

Re: Latest version of Gnus?

[Adam Sjøgren]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:47:25 -0600, Tommy wrote:

> - .../development refers to stuff called ngnus which I later see is "Not
>   Gnus"

It is called No Gnus not Not Gnus. No Gnus is the name of the
development version of Gnus, currently (and for quite some time).

There is a section in the manual outlining this:

 * 10.2.1 Gnus Versions - http://gnus.org/manual/gnus_349.html#SEC352

And wikipedia has more (including info on 5.11 and 5.13):

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnus#Versions

Development versions and stable versions are numbered independently. It
sounds like you are expecting the numbers to somehow correlate, which
may be contributing to the confusion.

> 1. gnus-version tells me I have 5.13. Is that the most recent stable
> release (MRSR)?

Yes.

> 4. What is the old-to-new version number mapping?

I don't think there is such a scheme.

> 5. Where is the most up to date handling of imap being done? If it's
> something post-5.13, then where?

The lastest is available in the development version which you can find
on git.gnus.org - the almost as new version you can find in the GNU
Emacs repository ("bzr Emacs") - it is sync'ed with git.gnus.org
regularly, and the stable version you can find in the latest stable
release of GNU Emacs and/or on gnus.org.

Exactly as it says on http://gnus.org/distribution.html :-)


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "I'm always interested in avoiding learning new              Adam Sjøgren
  things."                                               asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: Latest version of Gnus?

[Tommy Kelly]

Adam writes (stuff about Gnus versions):

Execllent. Thanks!

> Exactly as it says on http://gnus.org/distribution.html :-)

OK, but you have to admit that my journey raises a question:

"Is this Kelly dude an utter idiot who cannot understand the obvious, or
is it perhaps not that obvious?" 

And of course, both may be true.  :-)

t

Re: Latest version of Gnus?

[Adam Sjøgren]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 12:35:18 -0600, Tommy wrote:

> OK, but you have to admit that my journey raises a question:

> "Is this Kelly dude an utter idiot who cannot understand the obvious, or
> is it perhaps not that obvious?" 

> And of course, both may be true.  :-)

I think it is easily confusing (especially because 5.11 and 5.13 are not
mentioned in the manual, only on wikipedia), so I would say the latter
is true.

I don't think I have enough information to weigh in on the former :-)


  Best regards,

   Adam

-- 
 "I'm always interested in avoiding learning new              Adam Sjøgren
  things."                                               asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: Latest version of Gnus?

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:47:08 +0100 asjo@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) wrote: 

AS> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 12:35:18 -0600, Tommy wrote:
>> OK, but you have to admit that my journey raises a question:

>> "Is this Kelly dude an utter idiot who cannot understand the obvious, or
>> is it perhaps not that obvious?" 

>> And of course, both may be true.  :-)

AS> I think it is easily confusing (especially because 5.11 and 5.13 are not
AS> mentioned in the manual, only on wikipedia), so I would say the latter
AS> is true.

I think it would be good to redo the web pages after hearing Tommy's
story.  They are at

https://git.gnus.org/gnus-html.git

and I've been planning to set up a deployment script for a while.  I'll
do it and promise to keep it up to date if someone else wants to
actually adjust the HTML content.

Ted

[PATCH] Add note about Oort Gnus releases, and No Gnus.

[Adam Sjøgren]

---
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:12:45 -0600, Ted wrote:

> I think it would be good to redo the web pages after hearing Tommy's
> story.  They are at

> https://git.gnus.org/gnus-html.git

> and I've been planning to set up a deployment script for a while.  I'll
> do it and promise to keep it up to date if someone else wants to
> actually adjust the HTML content.

Ok; here is a little patch for the history page.

 history.html |   10 +++++++++-
 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/history.html b/history.html
index 8266490..e98f366 100644
--- a/history.html
+++ b/history.html
@@ -77,7 +77,15 @@
     there, and it occasionally rains down death and destruction on
     innocent bystanders.  
 
-    <p>Information about more current versions can be found in the manual.
+    <p>Oort Gnus was released as Gnus 5.10 in May 2003 - and Gnus 5.11
+    bundled with GNU Emacs 22.1 in June 2007.
+
+    <p>Work on the following development version, dubbed No Gnus, was
+    begun in January 2004. A version of No Gnus was released as Gnus
+    5.13 with GNU Emacs 23.1 in July 2009.
+
+    <p>More information about versions can be found in the
+    <a href="manual.html">manual</a>.
 
   </body>
 </html>
-- 
1.7.2.3

Re: [PATCH] Add note about Oort Gnus releases, and No Gnus.

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:00:52 +0100 asjo@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) wrote: 
AS> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:12:45 -0600, Ted wrote:

>> I think it would be good to redo the web pages after hearing Tommy's
>> story.  They are at

>> https://git.gnus.org/gnus-html.git

>> and I've been planning to set up a deployment script for a while.  I'll
>> do it and promise to keep it up to date if someone else wants to
>> actually adjust the HTML content.

AS> Ok; here is a little patch for the history page.

I committed your patch and created a ChangeLog.

Ted

Re: [PATCH] Add note about Oort Gnus releases, and No Gnus.

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:35:39 -0600 Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: 

TZ> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:00:52 +0100 asjo@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) wrote: 
AS> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:12:45 -0600, Ted wrote:

>>> I think it would be good to redo the web pages after hearing Tommy's
>>> story.  They are at

>>> https://git.gnus.org/gnus-html.git

>>> and I've been planning to set up a deployment script for a while.  I'll
>>> do it and promise to keep it up to date if someone else wants to
>>> actually adjust the HTML content.

AS> Ok; here is a little patch for the history page.

TZ> I committed your patch and created a ChangeLog.

...but haven't deployed it because I forgot.  I'll do it tonight unless
Lars beats me to it.

Ted

Re: [PATCH] Add note about Oort Gnus releases, and No Gnus.

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> ...but haven't deployed it because I forgot.  I'll do it tonight unless
> Lars beats me to it.

Go ahead...  but I forgot about the HTML SCM thing, so I edited
index.html directly a few weeks back.  Could you incorporate that?  

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: [PATCH] Add note about Oort Gnus releases, and No Gnus.

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:22:22 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> ...but haven't deployed it because I forgot.  I'll do it tonight unless
>> Lars beats me to it.

LMI> Go ahead...  but I forgot about the HTML SCM thing, so I edited
LMI> index.html directly a few weeks back.  Could you incorporate that?  

I brought your change into the gnus-html repo (the clone URL is
https://git.gnus.org/gnus-html.git if anyone is interested).

I then did the deployment like this:

cd /home/tzz
sudo rm -rf gnus-html-external-worktree /var/tmp/gnus-html
git --work-tree /var/tmp/gnus-html clone git://git.gnus.org/home/gnus/html/gnus-html.git gnus-html-external-worktree
sudo chown -R www /var/tmp/gnus-html
sudo chmod -R a+rX /var/tmp/gnus-html
sudo rsync -avP --delete /var/tmp/gnus-html/ $GNUS_HTML_ROOT

...which I think is reasonable and is in /home/tzz/deploy-gnus-html.sh.
The work tree has no Git data so the rsync works nicely.  The
favicon.ico was not in the repo so I added it; I believe (outside of the
*~ filed I cleaned) the deployed site is the same as before.  You can
check against /home/tzz/gnus-html-initial.tgz which is a snapshot of the
old site.

If you're OK with this deployment script, I'll set it up to run
automatically on every commit to the gnus-html repo and move it to a
bin/ directory within.  But the .htaccess is a security risk so you may
want to leave the deployment script manual or explicitly exclude the
.htaccess from getting rsynced or deployed.

Ted

Re: Add note about Oort Gnus releases, and No Gnus.

[Adam Sjøgren]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 09:13:07 -0600, Ted wrote:

> I then did the deployment like this:

> cd /home/tzz
> sudo rm -rf gnus-html-external-worktree /var/tmp/gnus-html
> git --work-tree /var/tmp/gnus-html clone
> git://git.gnus.org/home/gnus/html/gnus-html.git
> gnus-html-external-worktree
> sudo chown -R www /var/tmp/gnus-html
> sudo chmod -R a+rX /var/tmp/gnus-html
> sudo rsync -avP --delete /var/tmp/gnus-html/ $GNUS_HTML_ROOT

Why does it need to be more complicated than "cd $GNUS_HTML_ROOT && git
pull" ?

Just curious.


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "Accept the mystery!"                                        Adam Sjøgren
                                                         asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: Add note about Oort Gnus releases, and No Gnus.

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:20:14 +0100 asjo@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) wrote: 

AS> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 09:13:07 -0600, Ted wrote:
>> I then did the deployment like this:

>> cd /home/tzz
>> sudo rm -rf gnus-html-external-worktree /var/tmp/gnus-html
>> git --work-tree /var/tmp/gnus-html clone git://git.gnus.org/home/gnus/html/gnus-html.git gnus-html-external-worktree
>> sudo chown -R www /var/tmp/gnus-html
>> sudo chmod -R a+rX /var/tmp/gnus-html
>> sudo rsync -avP --delete /var/tmp/gnus-html/ $GNUS_HTML_ROOT

AS> Why does it need to be more complicated than "cd $GNUS_HTML_ROOT && git
AS> pull" ?

I trust chmod, chown, rsync, install/ginstall, and cfengine and Puppet
(and similar sysadmin tools).  But Git was not written to manage file
deployments or be secure so I don't trust it to do it right.

The rsync step can be modified to exclude .htaccess, for instance,
because it's a security risk.  If you `git pull' a compromised repo,
though, you're screwed.

Also the .git directory under the HTML tree would bother me and is a
potential security risk.

Ted

Re: Add note about Oort Gnus releases, and No Gnus.

[Adam Sjøgren]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 09:30:50 -0600, Ted wrote:

> I trust chmod, chown, rsync, install/ginstall, and cfengine and Puppet
> (and similar sysadmin tools).

Only the first three come in to play here, right?

> But Git was not written to manage file deployments or be secure so I
> don't trust it to do it right.

I'm probably being dense, but what exactly is it you expect git to do
wrong insecurely?

> The rsync step can be modified to exclude .htaccess, for instance,
> because it's a security risk.  If you `git pull' a compromised repo,
> though, you're screwed.

Surely you can do the same step(s) that you would have rsync do, post
pull?

Wouldn't you expect the machine to be compromised for the repository to
be so?

> Also the .git directory under the HTML tree would bother me and is a
> potential security risk.

Again I am probably dense, but how would the content of .git pose a
security risk?


  Best regards,

     Adam

-- 
 "Accept the mystery!"                                        Adam Sjøgren
                                                         asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: Add note about Oort Gnus releases, and No Gnus.

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:44:01 +0100 asjo@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) wrote: 

AS> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 09:30:50 -0600, Ted wrote:
>> I trust chmod, chown, rsync, install/ginstall, and cfengine and Puppet
>> (and similar sysadmin tools).

AS> Only the first three come in to play here, right?

My point was these tools were written to do file and system management
and Git wasn't.  If I wanted to do file management through Git I'd use
etckeeper (http://kitenet.net/~joey/code/etckeeper/) or something like
that, but I thought that was overkill.

>> But Git was not written to manage file deployments or be secure so I
>> don't trust it to do it right.

AS> I'm probably being dense, but what exactly is it you expect git to do
AS> wrong insecurely?

The two problems are separate: 1) Git is not a release or deployment
manager, it's a DVCS.  It doesn't have the facilities to do that, which
is why etckeeper and others like it have emerged.  So look at the
features of etckeeper, for instance, to see where Git falls short for
file deployments.  2) Git is not written with security in mind, which is
an architectural issue.  You can look in the Git mailing list archives
for plenty of discussion on that.

>> The rsync step can be modified to exclude .htaccess, for instance,
>> because it's a security risk.  If you `git pull' a compromised repo,
>> though, you're screwed.

AS> Surely you can do the same step(s) that you would have rsync do, post
AS> pull?

No, because pulling in place means that at least for a little bit you
have the wrong permissions on things.  At best your site is broken, at
worst you've opened a window of opportunity for an attacker.

AS> Wouldn't you expect the machine to be compromised for the repository to
AS> be so?

The repository is remotely writeable.  So I want to be really careful.
It's tempting to hide the deployment process, but I'd rather not rely on
security through obscurity.

>> Also the .git directory under the HTML tree would bother me and is a
>> potential security risk.

AS> Again I am probably dense, but how would the content of .git pose a
AS> security risk?

It could be used by an attacker to hide files, for instance.

Ted

Re: [PATCH] Add note about Oort Gnus releases, and No Gnus.

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> cd /home/tzz
> sudo rm -rf gnus-html-external-worktree /var/tmp/gnus-html
> git --work-tree /var/tmp/gnus-html clone
> git://git.gnus.org/home/gnus/html/gnus-html.git
> gnus-html-external-worktree
> sudo chown -R www /var/tmp/gnus-html
> sudo chmod -R a+rX /var/tmp/gnus-html
> sudo rsync -avP --delete /var/tmp/gnus-html/ $GNUS_HTML_ROOT

Sounds good, except for the manual files.  Perhaps they can just be
synced over separaterly?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Add note about Oort Gnus releases, and No Gnus.

[Adam Sjøgren]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:08:53 -0600, Ted wrote:

> No, because pulling in place means that at least for a little bit you
> have the wrong permissions on things.

How come? Does any of the files on the website need special permissions?

>>> Also the .git directory under the HTML tree would bother me and is a
>>> potential security risk.

AS> Again I am probably dense, but how would the content of .git pose a
AS> security risk?

> It could be used by an attacker to hide files, for instance.

If an attacker can put files in .git, couldn't he put them anywhere else
as well?

To me a deployment process that uses sudo a number of times seems more
questionable than one that runs fewer commands and unprivileged, but
what do I know :-)


  Still just curious,

     Adam

-- 
 "Accept the mystery!"                                        Adam Sjøgren
                                                         asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: [PATCH] Add note about Oort Gnus releases, and No Gnus.

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 19:58:26 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> Sounds good, except for the manual files.  Perhaps they can just be
LMI> synced over separaterly?

Sure.  I assume this means you want a non-automated deployment which has
to be triggered by a person.  Is it OK to add the deployment script to
the repo?  And where should I get the manual files?

Thanks
Ted

Re: Add note about Oort Gnus releases, and No Gnus.

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 00:29:30 +0100 asjo@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) wrote: 

AS> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:08:53 -0600, Ted wrote:
>> No, because pulling in place means that at least for a little bit you
>> have the wrong permissions on things.

AS> How come? Does any of the files on the website need special permissions?

Not currently.  But like I said, Git is plain stupid when it comes to
permissions and I don't want to trust it with them.  Maybe if we
combined Git with metastore or etckeeper it would work, but I'm not
confident and the scale of this work doesn't warrant it.

>>>> Also the .git directory under the HTML tree would bother me and is a
>>>> potential security risk.

AS> Again I am probably dense, but how would the content of .git pose a
AS> security risk?

>> It could be used by an attacker to hide files, for instance.

AS> If an attacker can put files in .git, couldn't he put them anywhere else
AS> as well?

It's a hidden directory that's served by the webserver, which makes it a
nice juicy target.  It's a small security risk but I'd rather not take it.

AS> To me a deployment process that uses sudo a number of times seems more
AS> questionable than one that runs fewer commands and unprivileged, but
AS> what do I know :-)

I realized I forgot to qualify the paths completely when you mentioned
that :)

I don't think sudo is a problem when it calls trusted commands with
known parameters.  I know exactly what chown, chmod, and rsync will do
as I listed them.  Git, on the other hand, is extremely complex and, as
I said, not written with security in mind.  So my choices are more
conservative.

Ted

Re: [PATCH] Add note about Oort Gnus releases, and No Gnus.

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> Sure.  I assume this means you want a non-automated deployment which has
> to be triggered by a person.  Is it OK to add the deployment script to
> the repo?  And where should I get the manual files?

No, I was thinking of just having a deployment script that said

git check-out
rsync /home/blah.../manual-files gnus/manual-files
rsync gnus /home/blah/gnus

or something.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

HTML deployments from Git (was: [PATCH] Add note about Oort Gnus releases, and No Gnus.)

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:45:58 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> Sure.  I assume this means you want a non-automated deployment which has
>> to be triggered by a person.  Is it OK to add the deployment script to
>> the repo?  And where should I get the manual files?

LMI> No, I was thinking of just having a deployment script that said

LMI> git check-out
LMI> rsync /home/blah.../manual-files gnus/manual-files
LMI> rsync gnus /home/blah/gnus

LMI> or something.

See what I have in /home/tzz/deploy-gnus-html.sh

Decide if it should go in the repo (OK with me) and if you want it to
run automatically on a commit.  I don't mind doing it myself when it's
necessary and it's much less risky that way (but not as cool).

Add whatever "Gnus manual" build process you want to it.  The repo is
entirely checked out by the process so you can do a local build of any
pieces you need.  Remember we now have the Gnus-specific include
mechanism in gnus-overrides.texi to let us say "this is a bleating edge
build of the Gnus manual."

Ted

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> See what I have in /home/tzz/deploy-gnus-html.sh

Looks good, I think.

> Decide if it should go in the repo (OK with me) and if you want it to
> run automatically on a commit.  I don't mind doing it myself when it's
> necessary and it's much less risky that way (but not as cool).

Perhaps it should be run manually a few times first, and then we can
automate it later...

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:47:24 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> See what I have in /home/tzz/deploy-gnus-html.sh

LMI> Looks good, I think.

>> Decide if it should go in the repo (OK with me) and if you want it to
>> run automatically on a commit.  I don't mind doing it myself when it's
>> necessary and it's much less risky that way (but not as cool).

LMI> Perhaps it should be run manually a few times first, and then we can
LMI> automate it later...

OK.  Next time there's a HTML change, you run the deployment and see how
it works for you.

If you don't feel like automating the Gnus manual's builds in the
deployment script, I can do it.  You kind of omitted that part of my
post :)

Ted

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> If you don't feel like automating the Gnus manual's builds in the
> deployment script, I can do it.  You kind of omitted that part of my
> post :)

Er, yes, I forgot what the issue was.  :-)

Please go ahead.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:27:19 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> If you don't feel like automating the Gnus manual's builds in the
>> deployment script, I can do it.  You kind of omitted that part of my
>> post :)

LMI> Er, yes, I forgot what the issue was.  :-)

I am not sure what's up on quimby but I can't build the development
manuals (in texi/, "make webhack").  Can you please try it and tell me
what I'm missing (from a fresh checkout)?

Thanks
Ted

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> I am not sure what's up on quimby but I can't build the development
> manuals (in texi/, "make webhack").  Can you please try it and tell me
> what I'm missing (from a fresh checkout)?

Err.

[larsi@quimby:/tmp]$ git clone http://git.gnus.org/gnus.git
Initialized empty Git repository in /tmp/gnus/.git/
fatal: Unable to find remote helper for 'http'


-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:50:29 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> I am not sure what's up on quimby but I can't build the development
>> manuals (in texi/, "make webhack").  Can you please try it and tell me
>> what I'm missing (from a fresh checkout)?

LMI> Err.

LMI> [larsi@quimby:/tmp]$ git clone http://git.gnus.org/gnus.git
LMI> Initialized empty Git repository in /tmp/gnus/.git/
LMI> fatal: Unable to find remote helper for 'http'

I'll see what's up (I'm sure I forgot it when I compiled), but you can
at least clone from the local directory, which is what I did long ago.
Look under /home/tzz/gnus-full.

Ted

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> I'll see what's up (I'm sure I forgot it when I compiled), but you can
> at least clone from the local directory, which is what I did long ago.
> Look under /home/tzz/gnus-full.

Doesn't exist, and if I try to clone the gnus dir, I get a permission
error. 

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 21:36:46 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> I'll see what's up (I'm sure I forgot it when I compiled), but you can
>> at least clone from the local directory, which is what I did long ago.
>> Look under /home/tzz/gnus-full.

LMI> Doesn't exist, and if I try to clone the gnus dir, I get a permission
LMI> error. 

I'll get it fixed tonight, sorry for the trouble.

Ted

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:46:58 -0500 Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: 

TZ> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 21:36:46 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 
LMI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>>> I'll see what's up (I'm sure I forgot it when I compiled), but you can
>>> at least clone from the local directory, which is what I did long ago.
>>> Look under /home/tzz/gnus-full.

LMI> Doesn't exist, and if I try to clone the gnus dir, I get a permission
LMI> error. 

TZ> I'll get it fixed tonight, sorry for the trouble.

I don't want to recompile Git for this with the libcurl support.  This
machine is ancient and all the dependencies will take 3 months to track
down (the packaged Git for it is 1.5.x which is no good).  Use this:

git clone git://git.gnus.org/home/gnus/html/gnus.git

which works locally on quimby.  And maybe upgrade to a more recent
Debian?

Ted

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> I don't want to recompile Git for this with the libcurl support.  This
> machine is ancient and all the dependencies will take 3 months to track
> down (the packaged Git for it is 1.5.x which is no good).  Use this:
>
> git clone git://git.gnus.org/home/gnus/html/gnus.git

[larsi@quimby:/tmp]$ git clone git://git.gnus.org/home/gnus/html/gnus.git
Initialized empty Git repository in /tmp/gnus/.git/
fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly

> which works locally on quimby.  And maybe upgrade to a more recent
> Debian?

Sounds like a lot of work.  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:44:59 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> I don't want to recompile Git for this with the libcurl support.  This
>> machine is ancient and all the dependencies will take 3 months to track
>> down (the packaged Git for it is 1.5.x which is no good).  Use this:
>> 
>> git clone git://git.gnus.org/home/gnus/html/gnus.git

LMI> [larsi@quimby:/tmp]$ git clone git://git.gnus.org/home/gnus/html/gnus.git
LMI> Initialized empty Git repository in /tmp/gnus/.git/
LMI> fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly

>> which works locally on quimby.  And maybe upgrade to a more recent
>> Debian?

LMI> Sounds like a lot of work.  :-)

Maybe do the checkout and HTML build on another machine and rsync to
quimby if upgrading quimby is not an option?  It's a real pain to get
the libraries built with SSL support, and the reason for this
back-and-forth in the first place is that the makeinfo process was
breaking.  So it would be easier for both of us to use a more up-to-date
machine and rsync.

Ted

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> Maybe do the checkout and HTML build on another machine and rsync to
> quimby if upgrading quimby is not an option?  It's a real pain to get
> the libraries built with SSL support, and the reason for this
> back-and-forth in the first place is that the makeinfo process was
> breaking.  So it would be easier for both of us to use a more up-to-date
> machine and rsync.

Now that Quimby is new and shiny, perhaps we should take another look at
this?  But I've forgotten what it was that we were talking about.  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:27:20 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> Maybe do the checkout and HTML build on another machine and rsync to
>> quimby if upgrading quimby is not an option?  It's a real pain to get
>> the libraries built with SSL support, and the reason for this
>> back-and-forth in the first place is that the makeinfo process was
>> breaking.  So it would be easier for both of us to use a more up-to-date
>> machine and rsync.

LMI> Now that Quimby is new and shiny, perhaps we should take another look at
LMI> this?  But I've forgotten what it was that we were talking about.  :-)

Checking out from Git and building the manuals periodically (using
gnus-overrides.texi to set the version appropriately), then publishing
those manuals in a separate section of the website.

Ted

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> Checking out from Git and building the manuals periodically (using
> gnus-overrides.texi to set the version appropriately), then publishing
> those manuals in a separate section of the website.

Right.  I've now read the thread again.  :-)

So the problem wasn't anything to do with git, but that "make webhack"
in gnus/texi doesn't work?  Which, indeed, it doesn't.  I'll have a
peek.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> So the problem wasn't anything to do with git, but that "make webhack"
> in gnus/texi doesn't work?  Which, indeed, it doesn't.  I'll have a
> peek.

Fixed and pushed.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:26:03 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
>> So the problem wasn't anything to do with git, but that "make webhack"
>> in gnus/texi doesn't work?  Which, indeed, it doesn't.  I'll have a
>> peek.

LMI> Fixed and pushed.

It seems to work.  So now I can set up a process to set the version,
make the manuals, and publish them nightly.  

Where should this live under gnus.org?  Should it be part of
http://gnus.org/manual.html or should I make
http://gnus.org/manual-git.html and mention that in
http://gnus.org/index.html?

Ted

Re: HTML deployments from Git

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> Where should this live under gnus.org?  Should it be part of
> http://gnus.org/manual.html or should I make
> http://gnus.org/manual-git.html and mention that in
> http://gnus.org/index.html?

I think the latter makes sense.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/