From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Dec 23 03:18:11 2022 Received: (at 59845) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Dec 2022 08:18:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36816 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1p8dFr-0004Ys-8M for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:18:11 -0500 Received: from msg-2.mailo.com ([213.182.54.12]:44438) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1p8dFp-0004Yl-M8 for 59845@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:18:10 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=mailoo.org; s=mailo; t=1671783474; bh=8PPbU6az/lfjMeMOJiv8HocgIKenfuqhcxlXKf+rDBY=; h=X-EA-Auth:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:MIME-Version:X-Mailer: Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=l5RkciF5/MXR+krTKdIL1Sjs9S7rCeSJisiPve+4JDj2wJ7EkRywiaRKoQflx9hrd B7b+7LcalxAJioST0RplsRza1D67QQzgJI0J8IR/DY53AFIMNP2dsfs0NUB1B0Ij/T MTDeMVYKjoWpsLVFMvdBrSHrOKONndzoH+CUd2J0= Received: by www.mailo.com with http webmail; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 09:17:54 +0100 (CET) X-EA-Auth: WsxY16deJsJp4ePfs5wEA1G4ARW1/HRzRdPxEGq6omIvAxMh8YiZzYQ/dOILzSGLFRlAsJzFu5Z4L1l5+OWTU7Ta7aqLdVze From: "yarl baudig" To: ludo@gnu.org Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 09:17:54 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: bug#59845: [PATCH 0/4] Add PMB (Integrated Library System) X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: COMS/EA22.05/r20221103 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87bknv12q3.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 59845 Cc: Julien Lepiller , 59845@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) > > > > Now, I see one solution to avoid the copy (and the chown), apart from = the=20 > very first activation. That's keeping even more state into http-director= y :=20 > for example a file ".version" with the hash of the pmb package used insi= de.=20 > That way we know if there's really an upgrade. What do you think? >=20 > It sounds like it=E2=80=99s going a bit far in terms of complexity. >=20 > 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 =E2=80=98computed-file=E2=80=99. >=20 > Does that make sense? >=20 Hmm no, not really. Yes it has to be writable for the interactive initiali= zation through web browser to take place. At least two operations take plac= e 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 databas= e. 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 a= ctivation and for the first activation after a package upgrade (or downgrad= e). 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"?