On 4/8/2011 8:01 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 11-04-08 at 06:02pm, Charles N Wyble wrote:
On 4/8/2011 4:40 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I am quite interested in improving Debian packages to be installable
readily usable out of the box. Experience like yours can potentially
be quite useful there.
Yes, I did notice that post. But I found less of an interest in that,
since my interest is not to "hack on top" of Debian, as I call it, but
to integrate with Debian.
Ah. Yes. As do I. Hence my desire to create meta packages.
...so only your later post made me actually look at that wiki of yours
and realize the amount of experience you seem to have with actual
concrete setups.
Excellent. My previous post was quite lengthy, and perhaps should have
been done on my
blog and linked here. :)
But yes, I have a lot of experience with the applications and feel
confident recommending them.
It sure is faster to put together separate SQL-injecting packages
together than to convince maintainers of underlying packages to extend
flexibility.
Yes. Very much so. I like the individual applications and they give me
"best of breed"
functionality for my particular needs. Others are free to choose the
applications they
feel are best.
Then I (and others worried like me that "hacking on top"
has higher risk of bit-rot) can build from work like yours at a slower
pace, without stalling first revisions of FreedomBox.
Hmmm. Well how difficult is packaging a LAMP application for debian?
I've installed
several via apt-get (not for data ownership, but various other
applications) and it's
always been a pleasant experience. apt-get install app, localhost/app
just works. Sometimes
have to hunt down default PW in
/usr/share/doc/<app>/README.(DEBIAN).(gz). Often times
default creds get setup during install process.
Should we move this portion of the discussion to the debian packaging list?
How detailed do you have your setups documented? Did you use Debian
packages, compiled everything yourself, or...?
Sure. No debian packages were used. I just grabbed latest upstream. If
the install was broken I rejected the package. If it required anything
beyond a web based installer I rejected it. Simple is key. I can
automate simple and deliver to the masses.
The criteria I used in the first elimination rounds seemed solid to me
at the time. The authors/maintainers of the software cared enough to
ship working installers, so the usage quality of the software received
high attention as well.
So far I haven't been proven wrong. :)
Hm, I suspect we talk past each other here: I did not mean if you'd
_created_ debian-style packages for your own customizations, quite the
contrary: How far did you use official Debian packages and which custom
tweaks did you compose and apply on top of that?
I have used 0 debian pacakges for the installs that I currently use. All
upstream .zip/.tgz files.
I'm actually hosting on a Centos box at the moment ;)
...but perhaps simplest is to wait and let you consense some of those
planned meta-packages of yours and investigate those :-)
Yeah I need to get those done soon. I'm still figuring out how to make
them work (the backups
and security anyway) but I imagine I'll package up the lamp stuff here
pretty quick.
_______________________________________________
Freedombox-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
