Re: Packaging Harvest cached
Good morning Ian!
}> } 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'.
Sure.
}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 ...
This aint no priveliges. Only the stored data is owned by nobody and
the logfiles, too. That's all. I don't see that this needs a different
user.
[7. ]
}> }Mention it in the postinst.
}> How?
}
}Err, by using `echo', `cat', `print' or whatever ?? I don't
}understand the question.
Ah, that's exactely what I wanted to hear. I for myself hate
installation scripts that produce to much of stupid output. An
installtion should work without looking at the screen.
I was wondering if dpkg contains a mechanism to store these messages
and display them later when everything is installed. This seems to be
not the case, so I don't have to think about.
}> } > 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 ?
Wrong with what?
The problem is quite simple. Cached tries to get an IP number for
ftp.uu.net (e.g.). If your nameserver is connected to the internet it
will probably be able to aske any root nameserver to help. cached will
get the IP number and feel fine.
In the other case, where the cached environment runs a nameserver, but
isn't connected to the internet ftp.uu.net normally won't be in it's
cache (the nameserver's), so cached will fail and tell you that your
DNS is broken.
Upgrade mechanism and the like work best for debian if the machine is
connected to the internet, but there are also a lot of people where
the machine isn't connected to the internet, but also want to run a
HTTP proxy.
}> OK, hostname -d should work. Then cached also depends on hostname,
}> right?
}
}Can you call the package `harvest' rather than `cached' ?
No. As reasons I would have given the same as M. Dorman (if I remember
correct).
}> 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 :-).
Waaa! But it's the Debian Community who wants to be happy with
it. Bashing me later is not good. :)
}> 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.
Ahem, yes. Sorry for not beeing that precise.
}> Okay, is cached-docs okay?
}
}I don't think `cached' is a particularly good name - see above :-).
The only other name could be harvest-cached and that's quite
long. It's even longer than the field displayed by dpkg:
pfinlandia!joey(tty5):/tmp> dpkg -l
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge
| Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name Version Rev Description
+++-============-=========-====-===============================================
ii cached-i 1.4.pl0 2 Harvest HTTP Proxy
ii dpkg-i 1.0.8 2 Package maintenance system for Debian GNU/Linux
harvest-cached 1.4.pl0 2
If much of you prefer harvest-cached, I will name it that way.
}> 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.
Because it cached should die it is restarted. But cached runs quite
stable, it doesn't die unless there are real problems on that host.
}> 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 ...
Okay, so I will let the RunCache script do its work.
Regards,
Joey
--
/ Martin Schulze * joey@infodrom.north.de * 26129 Oldenburg /
/ http://home.pages.de/~joey/
/ Unix is user friendly ... It's just picky about it's friends /
Reply to: