[Debian-med-packaging] Bug#707639: Bug#707639: gnuhealth: System user for the server

[Mathias Behrle]

* Emilien Klein: " Re: [Debian-med-packaging] Bug#707639: gnuhealth: System
  user for the server" (Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:06:53 +0100):

> 2014-03-27 12:46 GMT+01:00 Mathias Behrle <mathiasb at m9s.biz>:
> > * Emilien Klein: " Re: [Debian-med-packaging] Bug#707639: gnuhealth: System
> >   user for the server" (Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:39:05 +0100):
> >
> >> The GNU Health package runs its own dedicated Tryton server, under
> >> that gnuhealth user, unoconv would thus run under the same user as the
> >> Tryton server.
> >
> > I think you are missing the point.
> 
> It's because I'm coming from a different angle than you. Read on ;)

Seems so, yes;)
 
> > Provided you are running a tryton-server and
> > a gnuhealth-server under different users on the same machine, it will be
> > painful (read: impossible AFAIK) to run a unoconv service for both of them
> > or for each of them.
> 
> You are correct that having 2 running Tryton servers is not
> helpful/wise. That is why having a service-less Tryton package would
> be very helpful in this case (cf link in my previous post)

Nice;) You claim, that you want to provide a package with minimal user
interaction for gnuhealth, but ask the 'original' package providing the server
to do the contrary...

> To me, if a user is going to install GNU Health, they do it for
> medical reasons. They will also take care of the ERP side of running
> the hospital using Tryton, but they won't be running a separate Tryton
> server for that. They'll do it in the same Tryton server that is
> running for GNU Health.

You are doing heavy assumptions on users. This is exactly the way, you are
narrowing the possible target audience of your package. I could describe a lot
of scenarios where your assumptions will proove to be wrong.
 
> As mentioned, I consider the Tryton server package to be in a
> "broken/unusable" state right after installation.

To be precised. What is broken?

> I want the GNU
> Health package to be usable right out of the box, and be able to
> assist the users in all steps related to upgrades (such as updating
> the database models, possibly removing unused tables, etc.).

I answered this point in #707632 [1] and don't want to repeat the arguments
here.
 
> I can only do that if the database is managed by the Debian package.
> To manage the database, it needs to be created by the gnuhealth
> package. As I can't fiddle with files installed by the Tryton package
> (e.g. /etc/trytond.conf) as that is obviously against Debian packaging
> conventions. This ensues that I need to have the ability to have a
> gnuhealth user that owns the database, and run a Tryton server under
> that user so that it can access the database.

You are mixing things. Why shouldn't you be able to manage a database owned by
the tryton user? If you need a separate server configuration to be managed by
your package this can most easily be done with the -c parameter of trytond
(please have a look at the defaults file, that you are also using for the
gnuhealth package).
 
> >> I will close this issue as the current situation is the best for the
> >> Debian users of GNU Health.
> >> You are obviously free to add more details and argument your position,
> >> should you think this presents major issues for Debian or its users.
> >
> > Done. I don't think the current way is the best way to do it. I still can't
> > see the added value in using an additional system user compared to the
> > complications it can cause.
> 
> Does my explanation below help you understand my point of view?
> The core of the issue is not so much the dedicated user. It's the fact
> that in the current situation we have 2 running Tryton servers. The
> GNU Health-generated one is a precondition for the ease-of-use that I
> want to provide to my users.

You can run as many dedicated trytond's as you want (see above). No
separate system user required for that.

> If there was a service-less tryton-server package, this issue wouldn't
> be one. Would you be willing to accept a patch from me to do that?

No, I see no point in doing that. I think, the gnuhealth package should make
direct use of the tryton-server package.


[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=707632

-- 

    Mathias Behrle
    PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/attachments/20140327/66d7a0ea/attachment.sig>