shibboleth-dev - Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism
Subject: Shibboleth Developers
List archive
- From: Tom Scavo <>
- To: Chad La Joie <>
- Cc:
- Subject: Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:53:55 -0400
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=VfigytiVGxvWpFVHqXaEWLaUFwegTvF19m8EKPRyD4T7rk+tOWT8jJn0NaRgYAtzBkVf4qTSA7jKCTYsUf4SQGPem8Dgy0xdxoWn3vKNebnBbGC4hYnH7Oa7rFU2jMmzIjlLuw/8nfHGIk3TH/fqTEzSWx/rtXIxiPhGHP+eZmE=
On 7/11/05, Chad La Joie
<>
wrote:
> I think the instructions are
>
> 1. Set the flag to install the conf files
> 2. Build
> 3. Deploy/Install
> 4. Change flag back
> 5. Hand edit file
I may be missing something, but this seems like a manual process that
leads to human error.
> The question here is upgrade path, I think. As far I've heard the Shib
> upgrade path has always been to install in a new directory.
The current build script doesn't follow this rule, however. It
blithely installs over the top of an existing installation, which will
lead to problems.
> The
> assumption is that an upgrade will always include new configuration
> files/options and what not so copying files in to the old configuration
> directory(ies) would likely lead to the problem I outlined.
Agreed.
> You can have the extension do the installation of baseline files, but
> after that I don't think you ever want the build script touching that
> directory again.
Agreed.
> If I could get rid of the flag, by getting the build
> to auto-detect if it had already installed an extension, I would, and
> then I'd have the build just not copy stuff over again, ever. This is
> probably to hard-line but I really think the issue of mixed versions of
> config files would prove to be a monumental mess.
Agreed.
> To me, this feels like it's addressing your requirement. Do you feel
> that it doesn't?
I don't know, I guess I'm not clear on what you're proposing.
Tom
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, (continued)
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Brent Putman, 07/08/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Chad La Joie, 07/08/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Tom Scavo, 07/09/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Walter Hoehn, 07/09/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Tom Scavo, 07/11/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Walter Hoehn, 07/09/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Tom Scavo, 07/09/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Chad La Joie, 07/08/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Chad La Joie, 07/11/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Tom Scavo, 07/11/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Chad La Joie, 07/11/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Tom Scavo, 07/11/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Chad La Joie, 07/11/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Tom Scavo, 07/11/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Walter Hoehn, 07/11/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Tom Scavo, 07/11/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Tom Scavo, 07/11/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Chad La Joie, 07/11/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Tom Scavo, 07/11/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Chad La Joie, 07/11/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Tom Scavo, 07/11/2005
- Re: More defined custom extensions mechanism, Brent Putman, 07/08/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.