Re: Fedora 14 Install Script

[Philip Rhoades <..hidden..>]

Chris,


On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:23:11 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Neon <..hidden..> wrote:
> > > I would be interested in testing it out - I have had other
> > > things to
> > > deal with for a while but I want to get back to this
> > > soon.
> > I think (as Matt suggested) I'll try to post it on the devel list. 
> > ÂWill you get it there?


Subscribed.


> > > Â Ideally, it
> > > would be good if we could package it into an RPM.
> > True, to a certain extent. ÂAn RPM would allow the dependencies to 
> > get automatically loaded onto the system (through YUM) (except for 
> > those I had to go to CPAN for). And, if maintained, might get packaged 
> > into the distro itself (with all sorts of help making those CPAN 
> > dependancies also get into the distro).


The main hassle for me in the past every time I have looked at the 
install is that I have tried to install all the appropriate Perl RPMs so 
that I don't need to do a CPAN install (which is not nice - I want to 
minimise non-RPM installs).  I have always been, eventually, 
unsuccessful and had to fall back to CPAN.


> Have you tried the RPM for 1.2.24?  If there are bugs at the
> installation there we can fix that or tweak the spec file to include
> anything additional we need to be doing or provide scripts for things
> that can't go into the rpm installation itself.


I haven't but since the one company that I really used v1.2 for no 
longer exists, I am not interested in going back to v1.2 .


> > But I think it would have limited use with a working-out-of-box 
> > LSMB. It was a bit of a hassle getting things right (mostly within 
> > Postgre, not so much with apache or the OS)
>
> This is not something we can really do in the rpm for a number of
> reasons.  The big issue is we want to play nicely with other apps.


What do you mean?  Why should creating an RPM be unfriendly? - it 
should be the opposite for other apps . .


> What I am thinking about for 1.3 is to break things up into two 
> RPM's,
> one for the db and one for the web app.  This would allow us to
> install the db server if necessary as well as command-line tools for
> setting up the db


That would suit me - I use PG heavily for other things and would always 
have it already installed.


> > It would be nice to edit some config files within LSMB so that we 
> > don't have to worry about getting the right database, or the right 
> > host, or whatever, whenever we set up the datasets and users. It 
> > seemed to me that those things are going to be always unchanged (or at 
> > least default) after they're set up on the user's machine. Being able 
> > to set those from the setup means it's less error-prone during usage 
> > and there's less instructions for the end-user to fiddle with.
>
> In 1.3, one lsmb app has to hit one set of host/port.  The users are
> set up for the most part within the application itself.


PG was never really an issue for me . . mostly Perl . .

Thanks,

Phil.


> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get a FREE DOWNLOAD! and learn more about uberSVN rich system,
> user administration capabilities and model configuration. Take
> the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and the
> tools developers use with it.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Ledger-smb-users mailing list
> ..hidden..
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-users

--
Philip Rhoades

GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW    2001
Australia
E-mail:  ..hidden..