Re: RFS: obm
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]
Re: RFS: obm
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). 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. 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. -- panic(kmem_cache_init(): Offsets are wrong - I've been messed with!); 2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/mm/slab.c pgpsYmPFtLpC4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: obm
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 00:40 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: 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. I had update new release of obm pacakge on mentors repo. obm 2.1.9-3 now use ucf to conffile :-) -- 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]
Re: RFS: obm
OoO En ce début d'après-midi ensoleillé du mardi 20 mai 2008, vers 15:18, Sylvain Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait: 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. I had update new release of obm pacakge on mentors repo. obm 2.1.9-3 now use ucf to conffile :-) Hi Sylvain! 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. 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). 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. 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. -- panic (Splunge!); 2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/psi240i.c pgpjowLVGdrid.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: obm
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 00:40 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: 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. In fact, obm can be install on many servers, and it's always like this real install of obm on huge site. Moreover, Actually there are just 4 package (obm-conf, obm-core, obm-storage and obm-ui) butI work to publish other package to install Full OBM ( mail, ldap...). At the end it will be: obm-ldap obm-cyrus obm-postfix obm-services obm-samba obm-satellite libobmsatellite-perl libobm-perl All package of use obm-conf, and obm-conf must be installed on all serveur of obm architecture. For the 4 package you can have obm-storage on the first serveur, and the real application, obm-core on the second. But in order to make upgrade of BD with obm-storage, upgrade script can use API of obm in order to move calendar data or crm data, or other. So obm-core is required by obm-storage. 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. Ok, i must look this to use ucf. 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 look this, too. -- 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]
Re: RFS: obm
OoO En cette nuit nuageuse du jeudi 08 mai 2008, vers 00:40, je disais: 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. Looking more carefully, I have discovered that in fact, with the exception of obm-core (and of obm which is a metapackage), all other packages are just postinst scripts. I think that you should just stick with one package obm. This will be far more easier to understand. You can still break the source package into several binary packages later when you really need it. -- BOFH excuse #170: popper unable to process jumbo kernel pgpvishYWAdzF.pgp Description: PGP signature
RFS: obm
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package obm. * Package name: obm Version : 2.1.9-1 Upstream Author : [fill in name and email of upstream] * URL : [fill in URL of upstreams web site] * License : [fill in] Section : web 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 The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/obm - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/obm/obm_2.1.9-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Sylvain Garcia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: obm
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:56:44AM +0200, Sylvain Garcia wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package obm. * Package name: obm Version : 2.1.9-1 Upstream Author : [fill in name and email of upstream] ^^ That's good advice. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: obm
On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 21:16 +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:56:44AM +0200, Sylvain Garcia wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package obm. * Package name: obm Version : 2.1.9-1 Upstream Author : [fill in name and email of upstream] ^^ That's good advice. - Matt OUps SORRY: I am looking for a sponsor for my package obm. * Package name: obm Version : 2.1.9-1 Upstream Author : [Sylvain Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED]] * URL : [http://www.obm.org] * License : [GPLv2] Section : web 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 The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/obm - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/obm/obm_2.1.9-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Sylvain Garcia -- 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]
Re: RFS: obm
Le 6 mai 08 à 14:13, Sylvain Garcia a écrit : 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 The short description should be a description, not just the name of the upstream package. It should tell what each package does, and therefore should be different for each binary package. For instance I should now at once whether for my use case I'm more likely to need obm or obm-ui. I'm guessing what each -ext means, but you can't expect that from the average user. T. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: obm
On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 14:44 +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote: Le 6 mai 08 à 14:13, Sylvain Garcia a écrit : 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 The short description should be a description, not just the name of the upstream package. It should tell what each package does, and therefore should be different for each binary package. For instance I should now at once whether for my use case I'm more likely to need obm or obm-ui. I'm guessing what each -ext means, but you can't expect that from the average user. T. obm 2.1.9-2 is corrected. obm - Open Business Management obm-conf - Install configurations files of Open Business Management obm-core - Install core file of Open Business Management obm-storage - Install database of Open Business Management obm-ui - Configure webserver for Open Business Management Thanks. -- 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]
