Danek Duvall wrote: > >>> Do you have a real-life example in mind for this -- mysql or postgres >>> or a specific webapp? >> yes. twiki, i think it was. I believe there are others. > > Does the blastwave package for twiki (what's the name?) have this kind of > postinstall script? >
blastwave does not currently have a twiki package. This comes to mind, because of my recently having to deal with a similar software installation, by hand, and thinking "wouldnt it be nice if I didnt have to do this by hand, but I just had a package to do it for me". (unfortunately, I do not have the time to build one, for something I wont have to do again) > So you're asserting that the packaging system, running as root, or under > the Software Administration profile, is going to have the necessary dba > perms, passwords, etc? Sometimes it does. For the software I upgraded recently (the recent one, may not have been 'twiki' specifically), it was sufficient to "run this stuff as root". no special passwords were required. it was to a local mysql database. > And, to be clear, I *am* starting with the premise that packaging should be > about nothing more than putting bits on disk, with anything more needing > justification. Starting with a system that contains everything and > justifying the removal of each piece is, IMO, the wrong way of attacking > the problem. > I will simply say, that the more popular linux distributions, take the opposite view: that the purpose of "the package", is to install, configure, and make functional, the desired software, in a completely automated fashion, as much as possible. THAT, is what makes linux popular!! I recently had an encounter with a sysadmin, who normally runs on solaris, but set up a new service on linux... *specifically* because he didnt have to do any tweaking.. he just did [foo install software], and it was all set up, running, and ready to go. Saying, "oh, well, its not the job of a package to do that sort of thing", may look clean on paper, but it doesnt serve what the users want. To make the solaris experience as pleasant as the linux experience, the extra automated handholding, must be done by "the packager". As such, it seems to me to make the most sense, to give "the packager" the maximum amount of flexibility and power, in "the packaging tools and framework". Ironically, i seem to recall that, just a few months ago, someone on this very list was complaining about "the evils of layering", and how tight integration was far preferable (the ZFS architecture example). Seems to me, that attitude would mandate "tight integration" of things that packagers need to do, into "the packaging system". _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
