On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 22:09 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > OoO En ce début d'après-midi ensoleillé du mardi 20 mai 2008, vers > 15:18, Sylvain Garcia <sylvain.garcia@aliasource.fr> disait: > > >> 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. > > > I had update new release of obm pacakge on mentors repo. obm 2.1.9-3 now > > use ucf to conffile :-) > > Hi Sylvain! > > I am still very uncomfortable with obm-conf package. You should let > debconf handle any reconfiguration/first configuration stuff. It won't > ask questions twice if not needed. you talk about obm-conf/already_configured ? > > Moreover, this package configure will ask again questions about mysql > database configuration while dbconfig-common has already asked the same > questions. A typical user installing the packages on the same host won't > even be able to answer all questions since dbconfig-common will > autogenerate the password for him. > > It is a personal opinion, but I would prefer that database configuration > is generated by obm-storage package and that the user copy by hand the > resulting file to another host if he wants a multi-host > configuration. This will strip down complexity of the package, lower the > number of debconf questions (and the needed translations). ok, this schema explain the full debian package architecture of OBM ( inkscape schema). Actually i have this package which work, but there aren't debian compliant about policy. The goal of this packages is to install OBM on many architecture, on many servers For my, I prefer use obm-conf to make configuration database because my goal is " apt-get install obm-..." and it works, same on install whith many server. So i don't "copy by hand resulting file". But, of course if this is not debian compliant.... Morever, many obm component can be install without database, but it use obm-conf. > > And I still fail to see why obm-storage is a separate package. Its only > aim is to configure a database. If your concern is to be able to use a > remote database, dbconfig-common just handle that. Because, you can install obm-core on server without database > > obm-ui is an almost empty package. It just configures apache? > > I may just fail to see how OBM is componentized, but I only see one > useful package: obm-core. If you install obm-ui on another host, it > won't have any file to serve. If you install obm-storage on another > host, you could just install it on the host with obm-core since > dbconfig-common is able to configure a remote database and it would save > the build of another configuration file. Yes, :-D Because you can install obm-storage and obm-core without use apache configuration, so apache is installed on an other server. -- Sylvain Garcia Aliasource - Groupe LINAGORA 20, rue Hermès, Parc Technologique du Canal 31520 RAMONVILLE SAINT AGNE Téléphone : +33 (0)5 62 19 24 91
Attachment:
grapheDebianObm.svg
Description: image/svg