Robert Joop schrieb: > i mean the fs layout of the installation, not of the source. :-) > both were very similar before, but isn't this about to change?
Yes, there is a different in the future. > > This is no problem because they can build the hierarchy like they want > > via ./configure. > > i doubt most people want to fiddle with that, don't you agree? There must be a robust standardinstallation like Apache. So I prefer a complete installation into /usr/local/openca to made it easy to uninstall the complete software. > > I want to devide into data, configuration and code. The organization of > > very well, agreed. > var/, etc/ and (s)bin/ for example in fs some structure. The question is only what we should use as prefix. > > The databases are used by all servers and the export and import are done > > by ca and RAServer. > > right. > but latter in a little more detail? > - all-on-one-computer: is there any export/import at all? If we configure them with the same database and the same configuration directory then it should run without any changes (but this is something what we must test after the setup of openca-0.10). > - offline CA: i would expect a mount point or device, not some directory > like /usr/local/openca/data. > or do you suggest this as a mount point? No, it's not a mountpoint because the database of OpenCA::DB is hosted in this directory. A mountpoint is a good idea but I think it's better to use compressed archives (smaller and cheaper medias). (The other problem is that mount is not a GNU-tool.) Michael -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Bell Email (private): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rechenzentrum - Datacenter Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Humboldt-University of Berlin Tel.: +49 (0)30-2093 2482 Unter den Linden 6 Fax: +49 (0)30-2093 2959 10099 Berlin Germany [OpenCA Core Developer] http://openca.sourceforge.net _______________________________________________ OpenCA-Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openca-devel
