[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Debian-sf-devel] 2.6-0+6 available

From: Christian BAYLE
Subject: Re: [Debian-sf-devel] 2.6-0+6 available
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 22:20:03 +0100

Eric D Nielsen wrote:
> I couldn't tell if you have a solution for the extending database issue, or
> were looknig for one....
We have actually nothing done about extension, our priority is to have a
high quality
package, which install as easily as possible.
In this way of thinking, we think that a good way to provide extension
is to have them
in optional packages. 
Like this everyone can choose the features/extension he wants/don't want

I think that any extension should if possible not forbid any other one

> I've almost finished a working prototype "module" system to solve the
> extending the database problem.
> Ie each module has its its own sub-directory in www/module/ where it lives
> the module have their own postgres database, if they need to store data
> not already in the sourceforge database.  There is one "module" level
> additional databases that tracks which modules have been installed for
> administration purposes.
This sounds good since it doesn't seem to make any change to the SF db
How do you communicate with SF db if necessary for e.g. getting
users/projects info?

> Modules can also have patch file associated with them that is used to hold the
> additional "hooks/redirects" to add the necassarily links from existing pages
> to the module.
> I've taken the above patch approach, because the number of hooks that would be
> needed is so large that is isn't worth it at this time to go though the base
> code and add all them in.
The problem is here that we can't garanti that we won't do correction,
that will break your 
Anyone wanting to do an other extension can conflict with your's
We should maybe find a standart way of taking in account modules for
"standart page"

> If this approach sounds good, it would be useful if the upgrade doesn't touch/
> destroy the www/module directory and (optionally) reran the patches found in
> that directory to reapply the hooks....
> Eric Nielsen
Maybe there are extensions that will be of interest for everybody, 
so we could take them in account
directly in the base package.
Some extension are so close to the actual sourceforge that, it's much
better to add
some fields in the DB than to create a new one

We can maybe find a way to let you replace a base page by another, 
or even the complete www part. 
We have to look if e.g. the debian alternatives system allow this. 
Or we can imagine a sourceforge-webdesign virtual package that would
only contain www part
and be replaced as wanted.

Near future:

-Correct outstanding bugs

-I will probably take in account the possibility to enable a per project
pserver rw
based on proposed patch (#128808) .
-If not to difficult, add some possibility to auto-create cvs modules at
task creation



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]