Re: Packaging system improvements

[Bill Mitchell <mitchell@mozcom.com>]

On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Brian White wrote:
[...]
> Each computer will have a file which defines what files to delete and what
> files to move when installing a package. By this I mean a file like the
> following: 
> 
> Figure X: An example of a Local Policies File
> 
> ------------------------------------------------
> delete  /usr/doc/
> check   /usr/doc/
> verify  /usr/doc/
> replace /usr/man/       /usr/share/man/
> backup  /usr/share/     /usr/local/share/
> ------------------------------------------------
> 
> The first line ("delete") means that files normally installed in /usr/doc
> should be omitted. 
> 
> The second line ("check") means that files normally installed in /usr/doc
> should be omitted, but to make sure that those files already exist under
> /usr/doc (this may be a network mounted drive managed by another computer). 
> 
> The third line ("verify") is just like a "check" except it also verifies
> that the files are the same using the equivalent of diff(1). 

  ... and if the { check, verify } tests fail, do what?  Two possible
  alternatives would be (1) to abort the installation of that package
  (requiring manual action to deal with the problem) or (2) install
  the files which would otherwise have been omitted (which might be
  appropriate, or might not).

> The fourth line ("replace") means that files normally installed in /usr/man
> should be installed in /usr/share/man/ instead. 
> 
> The fifth line ("backup") means that files normally installed in /usr/share
> should be installed in /usr/local/share/ instead, but to make sure that
> those files already exist under /usr/share (this may be a network mounted
> drive managed by another computer). 

  shouldn't `backup' have { check, verify } refinements as well?  If
  not, there's no safeguard against getting differing copies of the
  files installed.

I haven't been following diety's evolution, so please pardon my
ignorance.

I infer from this that the package installation scenario would
be for a manual package install to be run on each individual
machine.  The file server(s) would be updated first, then the
workstations.  On the workstations, it'd probably be common to
see { delete, check, verify } in the local Policies file.

However, some of the other threads on debian sysadmin topics
leave me with the impression that the thinking is to do
all package admin on a central machine (a file server,
proobably), and to selectively propagate some portion of
what's been installed (or updated, or removed) there out
to other machines.

In particular, I think it'd be generally regarded as undesireable
to be required to do package administration separately on each
of several hundred networked workstations.

I don't think it'd be desireable to kick off another of those
debian-devel threads which won't die to discuss this, but I
do wonder if there might be some divergence here.  Hopefully,
my concerns are groundless, and I'm just misunderstanding.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .