[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: obm



OoO En cette  fin de matinée radieuse du mardi 06  mai 2008, vers 11:56,
Sylvain Garcia <sylvain.garcia@aliasource.fr> disait:

> It builds these binary packages:
> obm        - Open Business Management
> obm-conf   - Open Business Management
> obm-core   - Open Business Management
> obm-storage - Open Business Management
> obm-ui - Open Business Management

I  don't   really  understand  why  configuration   files  are  packaged
separately.  You  should merge  obm-conf  with  obm-core. Moreover,  why
obm-storage  is a  separate package?   This would  be  understandable if
there were  multiple backends (mysql, postgresql).  Would  obm be usable
without  obm-storage?   Moreover,  seperating  obm-storage  of  obm-core
forces you  to ask  for all database  parameters again. Worst,  the user
can't leave password field empty  when setting database because he needs
the password to configure obm-core afterwards. At least, obm-core can be
configured  before obm-storage. The  user will  be disappointed  in this
case.

When  upgrading  packages,  it  is  customary  to  be  able  to  upgrade
conffiles.  You use  an alternate  mechanism that  install configuration
files  only  on  first install.  This  is  broken:  you should  use  ucf
instead.  The  user  will be  proposed  with  an  upgrade path.  If  the
configuration files are not generated, just ship them as conffiles.

For web  server configuration, I think  that you should  link instead of
copy.  If the  user  want to  modify the  file,  he will  copy the  file
himself. If  he don't,  the file will  be automatically  upgraded during
upgrade.
-- 
I WILL NOT DRIVE THE PRINCIPAL'S CAR
I WILL NOT DRIVE THE PRINCIPAL'S CAR
I WILL NOT DRIVE THE PRINCIPAL'S CAR
-+- Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 7F06

Attachment: pgpcHbkroRMU6.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: