Shibboleth Developers

[Walter Hoehn <>]

Hi Tom,

I've made a couple of changes to the build process in response to  
your recent comments:


1) The main build process will never overwrite a pre-existing  
$IDP_HOME$/etc directory.  It will print out a message saying that it  
is skipping this step if the directory is found.

2) Extension configuration files are now installed into $IDP_HOME$/ 
etc/$EXTENSION_NAME$

3) Similarly to the main configuration files, extension configuration  
files will never overwrite a pre-existing extension configuration  
directory, but will print out a warning message.

4) $EXTENSION_NAME$ is now expanded in the extension configuration  
files, in addition to the templates that were previously mentioned


Thanks for your help on this.  I feel like what we have now is WAY  
better than what we started with a few weeks back.

-Walter


On Jul 11, 2005, at 9:53 AM, Tom Scavo wrote:

> 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