Re: dbconfig-common: near future change in dependency stack
On 12/06/2015 06:22 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Paul Gevers's message of 2015-12-06 05:23:07 -0800:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> TL;DR;1 if your package depends on dbconfig-common please update your
>> dependencies when my version 2.0.0 hits the archive (I expect in two
>> weeks).
>> TL;DR;2 should the new dbconfig-<dbtype> packages recommend or suggest
>> the database server packages?
>>
>> Since I took over the dbconfig-common package I have worked on the
>> following feature in the dbconfig-common framework: binary packages to
>> specify in the dependency chain which database types a package supports.
>>
>> The idea is the following. Each package that used the dbconfig-common
>> framework to set up databases, should depend on dbconfig-<dbtype> |
>> dbconfig-no-thanks instead of depending on dbconfig-common (as used to
>> be the case and still works). What this solves is multiple issues:
>>
>
> This is great! Thanks Paul. I've never been very happy with
> dbconfig-common because it kind of assumes databases are on the same
> server as apps, which is increasingly not the case with smaller server
> instances running in VMs, on the cloud and in containers.
Hum ...
dpkg-reconfigure dbconfig-common
> However, I also think that postinstall is not the right time to
> be configuring your database, and I'd rather see guidance in the
> documentation and the fine wizard that is dbconfig suggested as a CLI tool
> for users to use once they have thought through their database options.
I don't agree. Postinst is the perfect place. I don't see why we would
make things manual when we have automation tooling.
> So adding it to the Recommends just adds mystery to this process and
> doesn't actually help users find their way to best practices.
I though agree with the 2 lines above! :)
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: