On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 at 06:18, SRE wrote about "Re: Installation Issues &...":
> >wouldn't actually result in another "make install" (which might scare quite
> >a few people once they have a living, breathing production system).
> during the install. This will be required for creating and
> renaming domains on the fly, so it might as well be available
> for upgrades. Perhaps "make install" should be different than
> "make upgrade"???
"make install" does a full configuration. IMHO, it shouldn't fully do
it. Program location and stuff that normally doesn't change from install
to install should be included in it. Beyond that, things that SHOULD be
easily changeable (like domains) should be a different command.
This should be to the point that we can do a "make install" over a current
installation and have the old configuration *still* continue to work.
That also makes it easy to ascertain what belongs in "make install" and
what belongs in a "make config" (or something of the sort) -- anything
that changes from version to version or install to install goes into "make
install" and anything that makes sure configuration stays the same is
(someone can probably do a better job at defining it than I did...but I
hope you get the idea from this anyhow)
> >I guess it could be the "backdoor" to the whole system....but it'd sure
> >put less pressure on the original installation process!
> You mean leave the current "make install" alone, including that you
> must specify at least one domain, and then come back later to change
> and add stuff? That seems like a reasonable choice to me, but then
> again I'm not the one who'll be writing it!
from above, "make install" might run "make config" if it was previously
not run. But "make install" should not touch domains, IMHO.
Brock Rozen email@example.com