[Pkg-giraffe-discuss] imported final release of zarafa-webapp and pushed latest changes to Alioth

[Carsten Schoenert]

Hi,

I'm was going down the road to adjust the Apache2 https configuration.

To get a configuration that is working with https I have done some more
changes to the packaging. Since Apache 2.4 there are big enhancements
inside the maintainer helpers so some things are much easier to do now
now. But get a valid https configuration the site config has to be
changed to a virtual host configuration.

For this I've took the upstream site configuration and added the virtual
host configuration and place the new Apache2 configuration and placed it
in debian/zarafa-webapp.conf.

The postinst/prerm Script are "pimpt" up to use the available
'dh-apache2' and the 'apache2-maintscript-helper' snippets. Per default
the CA and key from the ssl-certs package are currently used and a site
admin can change this later.

The current work my be no perfect, but is hopefully the right way.
Please review the current state and advice some enhancements is appropriate.

I haven't pushed the changes to Alioth because there are probably
further changes to be made. Otherwise we are done for a first upload
together with the Giraffe/Zarafa packages to get this all better tested.

In the between times I pushed my current work to my Github account.

https://github.com/tijuca/zarafa-webapp

So please test this.

I would like to implement Jelles Selenium work too, but my knowledge
about this is really poor. So we need to do some more work here.

Am 10.10.2015 um 16:24 schrieb Guido Günther:
> Hi,
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 09:56:43AM +0200, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
> [..snip..]
>> So the question is now, should we create a simple debconf dialog there
>> the administrator can easily enable the http site with a big warning or
>> doing nothing on this and the administrator is doing a "a2ensite
>> zarafa-webapp" by himself if wanted.
> 
> See ssl-cert package. We don't need an extra debconf question for that.

Noticed and included, thanks for the hint!

>> And depending on this I'm not verry happy with the current behavior via
>> postinst and postrm there the website is disabled (postrm) and reenabled
>> by default (postinst) by no really needs. We can control this mainly in
>> the postinst and just reload the Apache configs if needed.
> 
> In any case the postinst/postrm must honor the admins decision. So if he
> disabled once we must not reenable it in the postinst ever (except
> when the package got purged).

That's how it should be now, I followed the tips from the wiki site for
Apache2 packaging.

https://wiki.debian.org/Apache/PackagingFor24

But may be I've missed something for now. If so then we should fix this
before continuing with support for other web servers.

-- 
Regards
Carsten Schoenert