On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:21:12AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 03:23:22PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: > > I still see a problem with the upgrade path for existing installations. > > I might be wrong but I think the most difficult cases are very custom > > setups with lots of changes by the local admin. I'm thinking of e.g. > > webmail.domain.tld being a virtual host with DocRoot > > /usr/share/squirrelmail. If the files there move to > > /usr/share/www/squirrelmail we break a lot of setups. So, what about > > shipping a symlink from the old location to the new one as a migration > > path? This doesn't solve the very default (e.g. users accessing > > squirrelmail via localhost/squirrelmail) but that is so easily solved > > via alias directive or symlink that I suppose a NEWS.Debian entry would > > fit best here. > > What do you say? > > I think that migrations from complex setup to this new setup will stay > complex no matter what we do. Also, it is not really something we can > "standardize" upon as migrations are very specific to each involved > packages and will ultimately be dealed with by single maintainers. So > I'd refrain to propose a generic upgrade path and just describe the new > situation we want to obtain. I agree, I was just pointing out that common setups can have a proper migration path. We could give a hint when we're at it but the maintainer needs to think of something him/herself after all. > > Now, I'm willing to run this, i.e. file bugs against web servers, wait > > for them to be fixed, then file bugs against web applications (if > > needed, I'm right now looking into a way to make a lintian check for it, > > e.g. package-with-section-web-but-no-files-in-canonical-docroot). But I > > don't feel like we're having a clear consensus here, do we? > > Well, defining consensus is always a tricky business :), but I haven't > heard significant voices against, am I wrong? I'd personally proceed as > follow: write a draft document (even a very brief one!) which summarizes > the proposal so that people do not need to dig into the thread to follow > the evolution. Once we have it, re-post it to the relevant lists (I'd > say -devel, -policy, -webapps) and ask for comments. I'll try to come up with something within the next 24 hours. Don't know yet if it's gonna be a DEP or just another mail but summarizing what we got so far sounds like a plan. Hauke
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature