[bug#59845] [PATCH 0/4] Add PMB (Integrated Library System)

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

(Cc: Julien who’s worked on PHP packaging before.)

"yarl baudig" <yarl-baudig@mailoo.org> skribis:

> I know there is a problem with this package/service. I feel I am sort of 
> breaking the functional paradigm. I also feel the package is "leaking" into 
> the service, because the package is completely useful by itself, I'm not even 
> talking about web server, PHP or MYSQL. The package is only a 'source' for a 
> service. If that makes sense.

Hmm, I see what you mean.  But maybe the same can be said of many
(most?) PHP packages?

>> > +        ;; Those are to hide installation files on a re-activation
>> > +        (if
>> > +         (file-exists? (string-append #$http-directory 
>> "/tables/noinstall.php"))
>> > +         (delete-file (string-append #$http-directory 
>> "/tables/install.php")))
>> > +        (if
>> > +         (file-exists? (string-append #$http-directory 
>> "/tables/noinstall_rep.php"))
>> > +         (delete-file (string-append #$http-directory 
>> "/tables/install_rep.php"))))))
>> 
>> Or just:
>> 
>>   (false-if-exception (delete-file …))
>> 
>
> That's not the same thing (check noinstall to remove install).

Oops, my bad, sorry.

> Indeed, after the first service installation, user interaction is
> required, as explained in the manual : set up of database password
> then (and that's the problematic part) initialization/configuration of
> pmb through a web browser by running "install.php".  So, you need
> install.php. One time. This initialization takes care of (at least)
> moving install.php to noinstall.php. Same logic for install_rep.php.
> This is also the why of the snippet below (the copy), because the
> application need to be in a read-write directory.  The purpose of the
> code above is only to differentiate between an installation and an
> upgrade.  The service keeps state of itself in http-directory, already
> installed or not, here I break the functional paradigm? Or that's not
> so bad as it's not a package but a service?

That’s quite unusual, it would be nice for the comment to explain this.

But it’s okay to do it this way; don’t fear the paradigm, it’s here to
serve us, not the other way around.  :-)

>> > +    #~(begin
>> > +        (use-modules (guix build utils))
>> > +        (use-modules (ice-9 ftw))
>> > +        (format #t "Copying pmb '~a' to http directory '~a'~%"
>> > +                (string-append #$pmb "/share/http/pmb")
>> > +                #$http-directory)
>> > +        (mkdir-p #$http-directory)
>> > +        ;; Please be quiet
>> > +        (call-with-output-file "/dev/null"
>> > +          (lambda (port)
>> > +            (with-output-to-port port
>> > +              (lambda ()
>> > +                (copy-recursively (string-append #$pmb 
>> "/share/http/pmb")
>> > +                                  #$http-directory)))))
>> 
>> Do we really need to copy these files?
>> 
>> Keep in mind that activation snippets run each time you boot the system,
>> and each time you reconfigure.  It’s best to avoid doing too much work
>> there.
>>
>
> Now, I see one solution to avoid the copy (and the chown), apart from the 
> very first activation. That's keeping even more state into http-directory : 
> for example a file ".version" with the hash of the pmb package used inside. 
> That way we know if there's really an upgrade. What do you think?

It sounds like it’s going a bit far in terms of complexity.

Why do we need to copy these files every time?  Do they actually have to
be writable?  If not, whatever this copying step is doing could be done
in a ‘computed-file’.

Does that make sense?

Thanks,
Ludo’.