HP3000-L Archives

January 2001, Week 2

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Donna Garverick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Donna Garverick <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:10:24 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
Doug Werth wrote:

> I was a little irritated at the time because I didn't think the job should
> have aborted based on the setup of the user files under Apache. But then I
> realized that this is the first release of Apache that is included with the
> standard update tapes so all in all the process went very well.

doug has brushed on something that has been 'irritating' me too.

in the 'old' days, the likelihood of having 'newer' hp software installed on our
systems was unlikely.  and even if we had applied patches, we 'knew' we were
getting newer software when we updated our systems.  but *now*, we can go to
jazz (for example) and pull down a much newer version of software than what
we'll get on our update tapes.

if nothing else, what i'd like to see from hp is:
1) better installation jobs for software like samba and apache (and etc.).  i'd
like to see separate version trees, with the version of <x> be part of the
directory name.  personally, i like how java installs, since it follows this
methodology.  java has a link called 'latest' that points to the latest (duh :-)
version of java.  if for any reason you have to retreat, you simply redo the
link and point 'latest' to <x-1> (or whatever).  it also makes cleaning-up a
breeze since you just 'rm' a directory.
2) smarter update jobs.  if version 1.0 of <x> is on my update tape, i *really*
don't want it to blow away version 2.0 of <x> that i've already installed and am
using in production (...and now the phone is ringing incessantly with screaming
users on the other end...'why doesn't my application work anymore!?'...).  if
(like i suggested above) the software is installing in separate trees then we
should be in pretty good shape.  maybe a 'latest' link needs redone but that
should be it.

even though what i'm suggesting (asking for? :-) is a bit bulky (in terms of
using disc space), it's neat and tidy.  you've got pretty good assurance that
<x> for version <n> is contained in it's own little world -- rather like the mpe
software we've used for eons :-)

opinions?       - d

--
Donna Garverick              | PROGRAM, tr. v., An activity similar
Longs Drug Stores            | to banging one's head against a wall,
925.210.6631                 | but with fewer opportunities for
[log in to unmask]         | reward.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2