Bug#652108: Some news about these scripts
Yup, that's true. So we'll keep it in -common! :) I still need to find the time to rework them to make them as sensible as possible. On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote: nginx-utils would only make sense in case the package would be Arch: any while nginx-common is Arch: all. And I guess the en/dis scripts are in a scripting language, right? Ondřej Surý On 20. 12. 2012, at 1:29, Thomas Ward trekcaptainusa...@ubuntu.com wrote: I think the point of consideration for splitting into another package is this: For just these two scripts (one to enable a site, one to disable), do we really need to split them off into their own package, and add that as a dependency for all the versions of nginx, when we already have each version (-light, -full, -extra, etc.) depending on nginx-common? I think splitting these off into their own package (the proposed -utils package) is only a good idea if more utilities are planned in the future. Otherwise, since the two scripts are going to be used for all versions of nginx (-light, -full, -extra, etc.), and if there's no plans for future utility scripts, then these should just be considered common, and put in nginx-common. -- Thomas
Bug#652108: Some news about these scripts
Hello. First, thanks Thomas for relaying the bug in Ubuntu. I will try to update both bugs when giving updates. The project is still alive (here : https://github.com/davromaniak/nginx_ensite). First, we wanted to add them before the freeze of debian wheezy, but we thought the scripts where too green for that and we delayed their inclusion. We schedule to include the scripts for Wheezy+1, and after the freeze of Ubuntu Raring, as we don't want to risk adding severe bugs in a stable (even not LTS) release of Ubuntu. By the way, if anybody wants to grab the script and test it, don't hesitate to do so and open issues on github if needed. Thanks. -- Cyril Davromaniak Lavier KeyID 59E9A881 http://www.davromaniak.eu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#652108: Some news about these scripts
Further Development... I plan to completely rewrite the logic in these scripts. I guess this would be the third full rewrite. I will try to get to them today or tomorrow. We discussed in the past whether this should be part of nginx-common or if there should be an nginx-utils package added for this. I'm not sure. We're getting a lot of nginx-* packages but the -utils package makes sense. Any opinions? On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Cyril Lavier cyril.lav...@davromaniak.euwrote: Hello. First, thanks Thomas for relaying the bug in Ubuntu. I will try to update both bugs when giving updates. The project is still alive (here : https://github.com/davromaniak/nginx_ensite). First, we wanted to add them before the freeze of debian wheezy, but we thought the scripts where too green for that and we delayed their inclusion. We schedule to include the scripts for Wheezy+1, and after the freeze of Ubuntu Raring, as we don't want to risk adding severe bugs in a stable (even not LTS) release of Ubuntu. By the way, if anybody wants to grab the script and test it, don't hesitate to do so and open issues on github if needed. Thanks. -- Cyril Davromaniak Lavier KeyID 59E9A881 http://www.davromaniak.eu
Bug#652108: Some news about these scripts
I think the point of consideration for splitting into another package is this: For just these two scripts (one to enable a site, one to disable), do we really need to split them off into their own package, and add that as a dependency for all the versions of nginx, when we already have each version (-light, -full, -extra, etc.) depending on nginx-common? I think splitting these off into their own package (the proposed -utils package) is only a good idea if more utilities are planned in the future. Otherwise, since the two scripts are going to be used for all versions of nginx (-light, -full, -extra, etc.), and if there's no plans for future utility scripts, then these should just be considered common, and put in nginx-common. -- Thomas
Bug#652108: Some news about these scripts
nginx-utils would only make sense in case the package would be Arch: any while nginx-common is Arch: all. And I guess the en/dis scripts are in a scripting language, right? Ondřej Surý On 20. 12. 2012, at 1:29, Thomas Ward trekcaptainusa...@ubuntu.com wrote: I think the point of consideration for splitting into another package is this: For just these two scripts (one to enable a site, one to disable), do we really need to split them off into their own package, and add that as a dependency for all the versions of nginx, when we already have each version (-light, -full, -extra, etc.) depending on nginx-common? I think splitting these off into their own package (the proposed -utils package) is only a good idea if more utilities are planned in the future. Otherwise, since the two scripts are going to be used for all versions of nginx (-light, -full, -extra, etc.), and if there's no plans for future utility scripts, then these should just be considered common, and put in nginx-common. -- Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
