On 12/06/2015 06:22 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Paul Gevers's message of 2015-12-06 05:23:07 -0800: >> Hi all, >> >> TL;DR;1 if your package depends on dbconfig-common please update your >> dependencies when my version 2.0.0 hits the archive (I expect in two >> weeks). >> TL;DR;2 should the new dbconfig-<dbtype> packages recommend or suggest >> the database server packages? >> >> Since I took over the dbconfig-common package I have worked on the >> following feature in the dbconfig-common framework: binary packages to >> specify in the dependency chain which database types a package supports. >> >> The idea is the following. Each package that used the dbconfig-common >> framework to set up databases, should depend on dbconfig-<dbtype> | >> dbconfig-no-thanks instead of depending on dbconfig-common (as used to >> be the case and still works). What this solves is multiple issues: >> > > This is great! Thanks Paul. I've never been very happy with > dbconfig-common because it kind of assumes databases are on the same > server as apps, which is increasingly not the case with smaller server > instances running in VMs, on the cloud and in containers.
Hum ... dpkg-reconfigure dbconfig-common > However, I also think that postinstall is not the right time to > be configuring your database, and I'd rather see guidance in the > documentation and the fine wizard that is dbconfig suggested as a CLI tool > for users to use once they have thought through their database options. I don't agree. Postinst is the perfect place. I don't see why we would make things manual when we have automation tooling. > So adding it to the Recommends just adds mystery to this process and > doesn't actually help users find their way to best practices. I though agree with the 2 lines above! :) Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
