GNU bug report logs - #59845
[PATCH 0/4] Add PMB (Integrated Library System)

Previous Next

Full log

Message #50 received at 59845 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "yarl baudig" <yarl-baudig <at> mailoo.org>
To: ludo <at> gnu.org
Cc: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>, 59845 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 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"?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.