As much as I agree with your sentiments, the issue that is at question is
the replacement of existing config files with default ones ... at least in
my instance, had those config files *not* been replaced, 'make install'
(to upgrade an existing, configured installation), would have left me with
a system that would have still worked as originally configured ...
Horde is/was designed to make upgrading it fairly simple, as it
*explicitly* does not overwrite any config files, because it doesn't
install any ... it installs .dist files, and the admin then has to move
those into place ...
All the port needs to do beyond what it is doing ... and, quite frankly,
it requires only one change to do so ... is to not do the:
mv <config file> <config file>.previous
The weird thing is that looking at the Makefile, I can't see where its
doing the move to previous in the first place .. and, in fact, the
following code should prevent it overwriting my existing config file:
.for FILE in ${CONFFILE}
@if [ ! -f ${CONFDIR}/${FILE} ]; then \
${CP} ${CONFDIR}/${FILE}.dist ${CONFDIR}/${FILE} ; \
fi
.endfor
Wow, okay ... Makefile says "don't overwrite existing config file", while
files/pkg-install.in is the one that forces the issue:
Personally, the following patch would make doing an install safe:
diff -c files/pkg-install.in.orig files/pkg-install.in
*** files/pkg-install.in.orig Sun Apr 9 07:56:56 2006
--- files/pkg-install.in Sun Apr 9 07:57:24 2006
***************
*** 101,117 ****
chown -R $hordeusr:$hordegrp $hordedir || exit 1
fi
- if [ -z "${PACKAGE_BUILDING}" ]; then
- # Don't reset the config to default (PR ports/88621)
-
- for cf in `ls %%HORDEDIR%%/config/*php`; do
- if [ -f $cf.previous ]; then
- mv $cf $cf.new
- echo "---> $cf not installed ***"
- echo "---> please copy from $cf.previous ***"
- echo "---> or from $cf.new ***"
- fi
- done
- fi
;;
esac
--- 101,105 ----
If its an initial install, the Makefile copies in the initial config files
as it is ... if its an upgrade, Makefile is smart enough to note overwrite
existing files ... pkg-install.in shouldn't either ...
That is the *only* complaint that I have with the Horde ports ...
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Horde is too complex and too configurable a program to
easily fit in the FreeBSD Ports tree. All you can do is
what I think has been done - which is set the port up to
do 90% of the heavy lifting, and depend on the person
doing the installation to finish off the configuration.
I think the horde port met this goal just fine.
It may not be politically correct to say this, but being
able to install and get Horde and IMP and the modules running
either with or without the assistance of the ports directories,
is the mark of a real system administrator. It is, I think,
a given that this port can never meet what I feel is an
unrealistic goal of being able to do a "make install", go away
and come back and have full-blown Horde/IMP server up and
running, ready to use. There's plenty of simpler programs
that the amateurs can do that with and have fine results.
I would point out that even the FreeBSD Release process doesn't
meet this goal. For all the vaunted hype about being able to
type "make release" and build the entire installation CD images,
it is really a bunch of bullshit. "make release" is just the
last command in a very long process of getting the environment
setup, and figuring out what options your going to set and
what they do.
Ted
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of dick hoogendijk
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 1:19 AM
To: fbsdq
Subject: Re: BEWARE upgrading Horde System
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 09:53:05 +0200
Thierry Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le Ven 7 avr 06 ? 16:18:31 +0200, Jeremy Chadwick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ?crivait?:
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 10:40:01AM +0100, Spadge wrote:
Why not overwrite the .dist and leave the .conf as it was? OK, so
it may
Many ports work this way (re: keeping the .conf). The port
maintainer should address this, as many others have done.
OK, I must admit that I don't know how to handle properly
installation / configuration / deinstallation / reinstallation of the
Horde's ports.
Since the very first version of these ports, I have tried several
solutions and accepted many patches, but I have never found a
widespread agreement. Maintainership is now available.
It won't be me (sadly enough I lack the experience and/or knowledge)
I *DO* hope however that the horde port will be supported in the future.
Personally I *never* had any trouble upgrading horde. I *DID* have to
read the documentation though! It is always needed with horde. But,
hey, given good docs, that's not too bad, is it?
Even the latest changes (from 3.0x to 3.1.x) went very very smoothly. I
just followed the upgrade path (/usr/ports/UPGRADING plus the upgrading
info from the horde package itself.
Putting back *.previous files also is not that bad. I can live with it.
So, I'd like to thank you for all the good work and hope you'd
reconsider maintainership.
--
dick -- http://nagual.st/ -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE
++ Running FreeBSD 6.1 ++ The Power to Serve
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/304 - Release Date: 4/7/2006
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
