OoO En cette matinée ensoleillée du mercredi 21 mai 2008, vers 09:47,
Sylvain Garcia <sylvain.garcia@aliasource.fr> disait:
>> 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 ?
Yes, and all the tests you do (test if its configure or reconfigure).
>> 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.
IMO, most Debian users will install obm on one host. Some will install
database on another host. For all of them, you need only one obm package
that uses dbconfig-common. With your proposition, those users will have
to answer questions about the database twice.
>> 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
But is the database mandatory? In this case, obm-core can configure a
remote database with dbconfig-common.
>> 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.
Ok for obm-ui.
--
panic("kmem_cache_init(): Offsets are wrong - I've been messed with!");
2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/mm/slab.c
Attachment:
pgpl6n75vDV23.pgp
Description: PGP signature