I'd say all modules should go into -core to keep things simple. If mongrel2 grows to become very popular we can consider further package granularity based on need, but for now it's probably overkill.
Regarding the default configuration, one issue I see is that mongrel2's manual encourages chroot, but the debian package would probably not do this and instead split things up (/var/www, /var/log/mongrel2, /var/run/mongrel2, etc) for consistency with the way the other debian webservers work. Does this seem acceptable? On Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:08:26 AM William MARTIN wrote: > Hi, > > About the default configuration, we can create a simple server which > bind the port 80, and serve the /var/www folder with a DIR handler. > What do you think about configuration and filter module ? Create a > package for each, or build all those modules in the mongrel2-core > package. > > If we have a clear status about the packages list and what theirs > contains. I can create the "debian folder". > > William > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Florian Anderiasch <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 03/21/2013 08:39 AM, Justin Karneges wrote: > >> On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:59:23 PM Justin Karneges wrote: > >>> So I'm considering two options: > >>> > >>> 1) Create a "mongrel2" package with a disabled default config that does > >>> > >>> not autorun. This would be similar to how the haproxy debian package > >> > >> works. > >> > >>> You install the package, but it doesn't actually run unless you tweak > >>> some > >>> > >>> files. This way if mongrel2 gets pulled in as a dependency, no other > >>> > >>> webservers break. > >>> > >>> 2) Create two packages: "mongrel2-base" containing files/binaries only, > >>> > >>> and "mongrel2" that depends on mongrel2-base and sets up a default > >>> config > >>> > >>> with autorun. Apps like mine would depend on mongrel2-base only, > >>> ensuring > >>> > >>> that if mongrel2-base gets dragged in as a dependency then nothing will > >>> > >>> break. Users that want to use mongrel2 as their primary webserver can > >>> > >>> install the mongrel2 package explicitly, resulting in an out-of-the-box > >>> > >>> working instance similar to apache. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I'm partial to the second option since it seems to be the best of all > >>> > >>> worlds, but I'm not familiar enough with packaging to know if there's a > >>> > >>> precedent of this sort of thing. > > > > Hello Justin, > > I'm by no means an expert on packaging either, but somewhere there > > should be some Debian guidelines. > > > > There's a few things I remember, but I might be wrong. > > > > - afaik the policy is to get daemons running with a "sensible" default > > config when they are installed. Especially admins hate this, as for > > example an unconfigured mailserver is basically useless ;) It's even > > worse for nosql stores that are only used in a cluster... > > - I don't remember any real conflicts when installing both nginx and > > apache2 (which I frequently do) - it's just that the second one can't > > start - obviously, as port 80 is already used. But I don't recall having > > any problem during installation - so I'd say: port 80 is good enough. > > - this leads me to say 1) is a bad idea in Debian, although it's > > sensible overall > > > > Oh, and have you seen these? > > http://mostlyobvio.us/2012/08/packaging-for-dummies-1/ > > http://librelist.com/browser//mongrel2/2010/9/23/ubuntu-ppa-for-mongrel2/# > > fd981cc2f12f668ada8a82a8fe03d440 > > > > Cheers, > > Florian
