hi,
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 04:45:42PM +1200, Penny Leach wrote:
> The main point of the remote-* packages is that they are a means to
> depend on a database. Currently, you can depend on a database, which
> hurts those users that want their database on another machine, or just
> recommend one, which means that it's possible (likely) to install a
> non-working web application.
i'm not convinced that this is the right way to solve such a problem.
imho webapps the need databases should stick with 'Recommends' field
for the database servers it could use. i think this situation is
fairly clear-cut in policy 7.2:
`Recommends'
This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
The `Recommends' field should list packages that would be found
together with this one in all but unusual installations.
that said, it would be fairly easy (and not dependant on mucking with the
package management system) to determine if a local database server is not
installed, and inform the admin giving them the "stop now, i'll install
a db server" vs. "i'm installing on a remote server" choices in debconf.
something like this would be pretty easy to throw into dbconfig-common.
sean
--
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature