[Kolab-devel] Autofoo Proposal

[Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems)]

Gunnar Wrobel wrote:
> Quoting "Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems)" <vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com>:
> > It's all about generating the default configuration file shipped with the
> > package.
> >
> > kolabsrv and kolabconf need to know things part of which is in
> > /etc/kolab/kolab.globals. Either way, whether generated statically or
> > configured dynamically, the defaults need to make sense.
> >
> > Hence, for LDAP, I would like to have:
> >
> > ./configure --with-ldaprc=/etc/init.d/dirsrv (389-ds)
> > ./configure --with-ldaprc=/etc/init.d/redhat-ds (redhat-ds)
> > ./configure --with-ldaprc=/etc/init.d/slapd (openldap)
> >
> > or, for SUSE:
> >
> > ./configure --with-ldaprc=/etc/rc.d/init.d/ldap
> >
> 
> I still don't see why you would determine that during build time. How  
> would people identify the correct package they would need to download?  
> I assume the --with-ldaprc option is nothing you'd find represented in  
> the file name of the resulting RPM or am I wrong?
> 

There *may* be sub-packages of kolab that provide the necessary default 
settings for the kolab deployment, but I really haven't figured that out yet. 
I just wanted to get rid of dist_conf/ for now, keeping in mind that at the 
consuming end, the packages may (later on) provide such functionality).

Again, nothing is set in stone here and I'm just speculating, but maybe think 
of it in terms of -and this is something distribution specific that I'm 
thinking of now, it doesn't mean Richard Bos goes the same route with 
openSUSE:

- yum install kolab gets you whatever is the most sensible default (e.g. a 
standalone server with OpenLDAP, for example)

- yum install kolab-ds gets you a package tailored to work with 389-ds/redhat-
ds, pulling in either of those packages (only one is available for any given 
distribution release), but still gets you a standalone server.

- yum install kolab-something-client might get you a standalone dedicated 
kolab server, but no LDAP server would be included.

This is just speculation however. I know for a fact that this kind of sub-
packaging works wonderfully well for some of the other ISVs I work with.

> Or are these really different "distributions" for Fedora? Is it  
> impossible to go from "dirsrv" to "redhat-ds" or "slapd" in a running  
> system? If you cannot and that is really its own distribution then I  
> agree it is a build time job. Otherwise it is a configuration job for  
> the installed system.
> 

Nothing is impossible, but to move from one LDAP tree to another is a project.

> Anyhow as mentioned in my last mail I'm not really against you  
> autoconf proposal as I see situations where it can automate and  
> simplify package maintenance for different distributions. So if you  
> can come up with some reasonable patches I think we should integrate  
> them.
> 

Thanks, I'll work on it some more, see where it gets us.

> In the long term I'm still dreaming of a more decent configuration  
> management for the Kolab server in general but I realize that this is  
> difficult because of time constraints.
> 

Duly noted. I'll look into such while I sink my teeth in various other foo as 
well.

Kind regards,

-- 
Jeroen van Meeuwen
Senior Engineer, Kolab Systems AG

e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
t: +316 42 801 403
w: http://www.kolabsys.com

pgp: 9342 BF08