Re: Packaging Harvest cached
Martin Schulze writes ("Re: Packaging Harvest cached"):
> [Ian Jackson:]
> } Why not /var/log/harvest (or just in /var/log) ?
>
> What do you want?
If they need to be written by group `nobody' then you have to make a
directory and make it writeable by `nobody'.
Perhaps you should consider asking Ian M. to allocate a special user
or group for you ? It isn't a good idea to give `nobody' any
priveliges ...
> } > 7. Harvest cached is a little bit freaky. Using the original code you
> } > cannot run it in an environment that isn't connected to the big
> } > internet. It does some tests with the nameserver.
> } >
> } > How should I mention this? It depends on any nameserver, it is not
> } > useful on a single site.
> }
> }Mention it in the postinst.
>
> How?
Err, by using `echo', `cat', `print' or whatever ?? I don't
understand the question.
> } > The above mentioned tests will probably fail on sites that are
> } > connected to the internet only temporarily and cause the cached to
> } > quit.
> } >
> } > Now, what should I do? Shall I disable the tests? Shall I change
> } > the hostnames? (I did that for me, we have two nameservers in our
> } > net, but no internet connection). If so, which hostnames should I
> } > use instead?
> }
> }If you can make it work for other people too that would be good :-).
>
> I fear that I have to disable it completely. :((
Is there something wrong with that ?
> OK, hostname -d should work. Then cached also depends on hostname,
> right?
Can you call the package `harvest' rather than `cached' ?
> The reason for not using the default port ist, that this port is very
> unknown. It is *let me fetch the code again* 3128. It's a nice number,
> but nobody knows it. :(
>
> If you want to have this port you can have it. It doesn't matter for
> me. Comments?
You're the package maintainer :-).
> }I'm afraid there's no documentation on it that I can find. 1.4.pl10
> }is fine, provided it increments in an `obvious' way :-).
>
> I think it's okay, because we also have elm 2.4pl23, so there are
> letters in it, too.
Oh, letters are definitely fine, if that's what you were asking.
> Okay, is cached-docs okay?
I don't think `cached' is a particularly good name - see above :-).
> I just recall that I have forgotten one thing. You can start cached in
> two ways.
>
> 1. Start the script RunCache, which controls it and restarts the
> server.
>
> You always have at least one "useless" shell in the process
> table.
Why can't it use `exec' ? (The shell builtin.) A useless shell in
the process table is not a big problem.
> 2. If everything is configured correct (which will be the case when
> package it for Debian, too) it's enough to just call cached. It
> will autobackground itself and work without any problems.
>
> I, for myself, use #2. What do you want to have for Debian? BTW:
> shutting down cached when using #1 is a little bit difficult. :)
You should make it so that it's easy to start and shut down, obviously
:-). On the other hand, it might be like INN and have a `watch'
script that is best enabled ...
Ian.
Reply to: