[ckan-dev] Source install/deployment docs

[Nigel Babu]

Hi Sean,

This sounds like a good compromise to me. I'll defer to David's and Joe's
judgment on what this does to packaging though.

I only have one worry with us changing how the package works.  What about
package upgrades? We should test that people upgrading from 1.8 to 2.0 will
able to upgrade with the new package and not have problems.

Having slept on it, I think having one set of documentation that we follow
and we ask everyone to follow is a good idea.

Nigel.


On 26 April 2013 14:22, Sean Hammond <sean.hammond at okfn.org> wrote:

> > All, I'm having trouble with what we agreed on Skype this morning. If I
> > change the source install docs to document a single-instance-on-a-server
> > setup but add popouts explaining how people could modify it to do
> > multiple instances, then it's gonna be spaghetti docs with loads of
> > popouts on several pages:
>
> Having slept on this, I think a possible solution might be: all three
> installs (package install, source install, and OKFN's internal install
> process) use the multi-instance layout that we use internally, **but**
> use a default site ID (e.g. "default"):
>
> /usr/lib/ckan/default
> /etc/ckan/default
> Database and database user names: ckan_default
> and so on
>
> David/Adria, I _think_ this still gives what you wanted for the package
> install:
>
> - Installing the package can both install CKAN and boot a default CKAN
>   site, you don't have to run a command after installing the package to
>   boot the site
> - Everyone who does a package install has all their files in the same
>   locations, they're not in subdirs with different site names
> - But they are in a subdir named default, that's the difference
>
> The source install instructions will also use this default subdir. On
> our own servers, we can use the same layout except of course our sites
> won't be called default.
>
> There are just a lot of advantages to having the package install, source
> install and OKFN's own internal processes (including Ansible scripts
> that Joel and Nigel are working on) use the same filesystem layout and
> naming conventions for databases, users, etc.
>
> We can dogfood our own docs and not duplicate them. Throughout the docs,
> and in support requests, whenever we want to give an example command or
> file path we can use the default site ID. No more examples commands that
> say things like --config=/path/to/your/production.ini. No more having to
> ask people whether they did a package install or a source install.
>
> If possible, I think it would be good to do this for the 2.0 package
> install and source installs. The reason is, that introducing this in 2.1
> will be a pain, when you consider people trying to upgrade.
>
> Let me know what you think of this idea, and we can decide next week.
>
> P.S. If we can't agree on this, my second option is for the package and
> source install to be single-instance in /usr/lib/ckan and /etc/ckan and
> not mention multi-instance at all, and then for us to follow different
> docs internally.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-dev mailing list
> ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ckan-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/ckan-dev/attachments/20130429/93e6391c/attachment-0001.html>