Hi all.
I noticed Russ's recent comments on the Web Infrastructure page and wanted to take it to the public instead of using the wiki for communication:
http://wiki.centos.org/WebsiteVer2/WebEnvironment/Infrastructure?action=diff...
There are a few challenges in a common infrastructure setup. We make use of components that are not part of the 'official' CentOS repositories atm. Most of them are web applications like Moin, phpBB, Mailmann, etc. These have to be packed and made available, either in a publicly accessible (preferred) or an internal repo. So maybe CentOS Extras or even Contrib is a good place to hold these new packages.
Another advantage is the artwork and style setup. This could either be included directly within the corresponding application packages or packed separately.
As we are also replacing some configuration files of HTTP (e.g. error messages) we may also have to re-pack this app. Having RPMs that replace other RPMs configurations is not the preferred way, I guess.
Best Regards Marcus
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Marcus Moeller mail@marcus-moeller.de wrote:
There are a few challenges in a common infrastructure setup. We make use of components that are not part of the 'official' CentOS repositories atm. Most of them are web applications like Moin, phpBB, Mailmann, etc.
Just as a note: Mailman *is* available in the core repositories. The other two aren't, that is true.
These have to be packed and made available, either in a publicly accessible (preferred) or an internal repo. So maybe CentOS Extras or even Contrib is a good place to hold these new packages.
Yes.
Another advantage is the artwork and style setup. This could either be included directly within the corresponding application packages or packed separately.
Those need to be done as separate packages, so you don't need to update the application when you update styles/artwork and the other way around.
As we are also replacing some configuration files of HTTP (e.g. error messages) we may also have to re-pack this app. Having RPMs that replace other RPMs configurations is not the preferred way, I guess.
The error messages maybe should be played out via puppet. Config itself needs to go into puppet anyway.
Cheers,
Ralph
On 09/30/2009 07:59 AM, Marcus Moeller wrote:
publicly accessible (preferred) or an internal repo. So maybe CentOS Extras or even Contrib is a good place to hold these new packages.
That works for me, we still dont have a clear policy on Contrib/ so lets avoid using that for now.
Another advantage is the artwork and style setup. This could either be included directly within the corresponding application packages or packed separately.
Sysadmin best practices would be to hold site and implementation / role specific components and knowledge in the system management / config manage system and not the rpm.
Having said that - the default index.html page and some of the others could well do with CentOS branding upgrades. That sort of a thing could be rolled into the distro packages without a problem. eg. Firefox's default loadup page and the httpd welcome.conf target page. None of these are site/role specific.
As we are also replacing some configuration files of HTTP (e.g. error messages) we may also have to re-pack this app. Having RPMs that replace other RPMs configurations is not the preferred way, I guess.
puppet in this case. As and when there are things in place, one of us on the sysadmin team will start looking at implementation details and get involved with the process. Are we at that stage already ?
- KB
-
Karanbir Singh -
Marcus Moeller -
Ralph Angenendt