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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
