[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#59845] [PATCH 0/4] Add PMB (Integrated Library System)
From: |
yarl baudig |
Subject: |
[bug#59845] [PATCH 0/4] Add PMB (Integrated Library System) |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Dec 2022 09:17:54 +0100 (CET) |
> >
> > Now, I see one solution to avoid the copy (and the chown), apart from the
> very first activation. That's keeping even more state into http-directory :
> for example a file ".version" with the hash of the pmb package used inside.
> That way we know if there's really an upgrade. What do you think?
>
> It sounds like it’s going a bit far in terms of complexity.
>
> Why do we need to copy these files every time? Do they actually have to
> be writable? If not, whatever this copying step is doing could be done
> in a ‘computed-file’.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
Hmm no, not really. Yes it has to be writable for the interactive
initialization through web browser to take place. At least two operations take
place there that need RW :
1/ renaming of both install.php and install_req.php.
2/ saving into a file the url and credentials for connexion to the database.
There is no _need_ to copy every time. I did like this in my first patchs
because it was _correct_ (I didn't think about efficiency then).
That's why I am proposing the solution which copy only for the very fist
activation and for the first activation after a package upgrade (or downgrade).
I don't see how we could avoid this. I don't think it's a good idea to try to
avoid the interactive installation as it gives informations and options on the
installation to the user.
Why "computed-file"?
- [bug#59845] V2, (continued)