bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Olemis Lang <>
Subject Re: White-labeling and "detracifying"
Date Mon, 12 Nov 2012 00:51:21 GMT
On 11/11/12, Branko Čibej <> wrote:
> On 11.11.2012 09:52, Peter Koželj wrote:
>> On 8 November 2012 21:53, Olemis Lang <> wrote:
>>> Why not just sections in trac.ini itself rather than a separate file
>>> ? Having many config files/sources will make things a bit difficult
>>> ... afaics . In the end there should always a way to make such
>>> configs fit into INI file structure .
>> Yes, for the first version this will be enough. Later I might still
>> prefer
>> having it in separate file for easier packaging.

Hmmm ... My concern is that if those options will have some impact on
Bloodhound behavior then it'd be nice to have them somewhere in
trac.ini so that plugins and components can read them by using
instances of trac.config.Option or in a way similar to
self.conf.get('section', 'key') . Otherwise we'll have to reinvent
another wheel to do the same thing , which in advance turns out to be
unnecessary .

>> Maybe a file that installer would read and copy the setting over to
>> trac.ini or something but I am not sure if that would be in the scope of
>> Bloodhound the Apache project.
> It can be, if you like. It's up to you to decide whether you want to
> bundle an installer script or not.

AFAICR in current installer script [1]_ we should be doing something
like that already in order to perform BH-specific install config steps
e.g. enable AccountManager and other plugins

> It's fairly common practice to have a
> "make install" thing for Unix, for example.

There are some of those in Trac too , and we should be able to add our
own make commands as well

.. [1] asf - Revision 1407907: /incubator/bloodhound/trunk/installer



Blog ES:
Blog EN:

Featured article:

View raw message