Jeremy Baron <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Which brings me
>> to: Does anyone know an established format a) in which pro-
>> jects could write down their requirements and b) that covers
>> both Debian and Solaris?  So when admins need to (re-)in-
>> stall a server, they wouldn't have to guess which packages
>> are (still) required, but could just collect all
>> $HOME/.requirements for active accounts and when one of
>> these could not be satisfied, there would also be a person
>> to contact before tools get broken.

> I assume this is one of the reasons to use puppet?

> Puppet manifests can have comments and the roots could establish a
> standardized way of writing (inline) why a package is needed.
> (e.g.,
>   a) assumed to be widely used like sed, grep or
>   b) needed by the roots or a process that doesn't belong to a
> particular user or MMP or
>   c) needed by users/MMP foo, baz, bar
> or some combination of those.)

> Of course most people (whether roots or users or anyone else) won't do
> a very thorough job of enumerating dependencies when installing,
> updating, hacking software unless they first do an installation of
> that version on a brand new Debian install with a limited set of
> installed packages. i.e. most people won't notice that a package is
> needed or not already picked up some other way until they see
> something is broken because it's missing.

> I'm not sure if I like ~/.requirements (and maybe it could be
> something like ~/.package-depends instead?) in place of puppet but at
> least it could be used as a failsafe if a root wanted to check after
> installing a new box or before removing a package.
> [...]

I wouldn't want to put the burden on the roots because that
would mean that they have to mangle all the small notes that
project X needs package Y into the puppet manifest which in
most cases - as you noted - will not have much effect.  If
instead it'd be up to the project's developers, the workload
lies with who has a) the information needed and b) the moti-
vation.

  On second thought though, I think ~/.something is too
hidden.  We already have the nice [[Template:Tool]] on the
Toolserver Wiki; it would be much better to store the depen-
dencies as fields thus encouraging developers to update (or
create) their pages there and give them more "publicity".

Tim


_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list ([email protected])
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: 
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

Reply via email to