OoO En cette fin de matinée radieuse du mardi 06 mai 2008, vers 11:56, Sylvain Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait:
> It builds these binary packages: > obm - Open Business Management > obm-conf - Open Business Management > obm-core - Open Business Management > obm-storage - Open Business Management > obm-ui - Open Business Management I don't really understand why configuration files are packaged separately. You should merge obm-conf with obm-core. Moreover, why obm-storage is a separate package? This would be understandable if there were multiple backends (mysql, postgresql). Would obm be usable without obm-storage? Moreover, seperating obm-storage of obm-core forces you to ask for all database parameters again. Worst, the user can't leave password field empty when setting database because he needs the password to configure obm-core afterwards. At least, obm-core can be configured before obm-storage. The user will be disappointed in this case. When upgrading packages, it is customary to be able to upgrade conffiles. You use an alternate mechanism that install configuration files only on first install. This is broken: you should use ucf instead. The user will be proposed with an upgrade path. If the configuration files are not generated, just ship them as conffiles. For web server configuration, I think that you should link instead of copy. If the user want to modify the file, he will copy the file himself. If he don't, the file will be automatically upgraded during upgrade. -- I WILL NOT DRIVE THE PRINCIPAL'S CAR I WILL NOT DRIVE THE PRINCIPAL'S CAR I WILL NOT DRIVE THE PRINCIPAL'S CAR -+- Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 7F06
pgpaHiPokcWjE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
