Re: Minutes from the DebConf5 BOF?
sean finney wrote:
>>Just say no to nested apt-get install invocations ;)
>
> what i meant by "stop now, i'll install a db server" was not to inline
> more packages into an apt-get call (because we don't even know that they
> are using apt), but instead to fail the postinst, which would leave
> the package unconfigured, allowing the admin to install the db server
> package, which iirc will automatically attempt to reconfigure the
"failed"
> package after installing the db server.
Ack. Misread that. Hmmm, I need to go through the mental exercise of
thinking all the corner cases, but it seems a manageable situation.
Perhaps.
You asked:
but what about cases where an app has been configured for a remote
database, and there's a package installed, and then the admin wants to do
one locally. you're still in the same position as you'd be w/recommends.
And I don't think we can get gracefully through the _reverse_ scenario,
where there's a local db but we want to use a remote one. Or perhaps you
mean that dbconfig-common will ask _always_? I read the following quote
and wonder:
> the presence of a db shouldn't necessarily imply that an admin wants
> to install locally on that db. with dbconfig-common they will still
> have the option of how to install.
Finally, we have to deal with scenarios where there are several
webservers to one database backend. If we are dealing with db schema
maintenance and related tasks in postinst, one of the webservers should
be 'upgrade master' of sorts, and debconf should know about this. Some
apps deal with this at the app level.
cheers,
martin
Reply to: