Re: wip/publicfile-run: review request

["J. Lewis Muir" <jlmuir%imca-cat.org@localhost>]

On 1/14/15 8:12 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> "J. Lewis Muir" <jlmuir%imca-cat.org@localhost> writes:
>> I've added publicfile-run to pkgsrc-wip and would like to request a
>> review if possible.
>>
>> It's a package providing NetBSD-style rc.d scripts for running
>> publicfile HTTP and FTP services.  It is similar in spirit to
>> net/djbdns-run and mail/qmail-run.
>
> Typically, we provide rc.d files for a package with the package
> itself, so that when users install the package, they show up (in the
> examples directory) or in /etc/rc.d (with PKG_RCD_SCRIPTS).  So, I
> wonder why a separate package.

Hi, Greg.

Thank you for reviewing the package!

Right.  I considered that too when creating this package.  I made it a
separate package because that's what had been done in net/djbdns-run and
mail/qmail-run, so I thought that was the preferred approach.

Maybe the idea is that with the DJB software, the DJB way is to create
users and groups by hand, configure it using the provided configure
program and set everything up by hand and run it under supervise, etc.
By making a separate -run package, the original package remains clean
for people wanting to do that, and the -run package provides a way to
run the package without having to do all that stuff by hand.  But that's
just a guess....

This package provides the rc.d scripts, but it also causes one group
(pubfile) and three users (pubftp, pubhttp, and publog) to be created
for running the publicfile services.

I'm open to whatever approach is considered the best.

> But there seems to be a djb-issue here.  If that's the issue, it
> should be noted in DESCR, because this separate arrangement is
> contrary to our packaging norms.  But I don't understand that; it may
> be that we feel we don't have permission to distribute packages at
> all, but I don't see any reason not to add rc.d files.

I'm sure Amitai Schlair has a reason.

> (Also, given his public domain declarations for other code, it
> seems reasonable to ask him to add a public domain declaration for
> publicfile.)

OK, I just sent him an email asking.

> This has a MESSAGE.  Not specifically about this (and I realize you
> are trying to follow existing practice), but I am feeling that MESSAGE
> is more and more overused.  It's fine for a package to install a
> README in share/doc/package/README or some such, and that's where
> people should go to understand how to use it.  Especially with package
> managers, MESSAGE files are both overly verbose and easy to miss.  I
> wonder if any of the uses of MESSAGE in pkgsrc are really appropriate;
> perhaps MESSAGE should go away, or mostly go away.

You're right, I was just following what net/djbdns-run and
mail/qmail-run did.  I certainly see your point and tend to agree with
what you're saying.  I'm happy to do whatever is considered the best.

Regards,

Lewis