Re: RFS: obm

[Sylvain Garcia <sylvain.garcia@aliasource.fr>]

On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 18:46 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> 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).
Ok I look this, to improve this.
> 
> >> 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.

Yes, of course, and there is OBM which is the metapackage to install all
obm deb.
For the twice questions, it's wrong ( I think .. :-D I'm not
expert :-D ) becaouse obm-storage.config set debconf var:

db_get obm-conf/mysqluser
OBM_USER=$RET
[...]
dbc_dbuser="$OBM_USER"


> 
> >> 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.
-- 
Sylvain Garcia
Aliasource - Groupe LINAGORA
20, rue Hermès, Parc Technologique du Canal 31520 RAMONVILLE SAINT AGNE
Téléphone : +33 (0)5 62 19 24 91