[Pkg-giraffe-discuss] Update of z-push package to 2.4.0?

[Roel van Meer]

Carsten Schoenert writes:

> z-push 2.4.0 was released on 8th of March.
> Could you have a look at this please?
>
> I would merge debian/experimental into debian/sid and then import the
> new upstream source. The further needed changes should be small.
> We may need to have a look at the configuration for the various
> webservers then. Upstream already modified their configs with 2.4.0-beta1.

I've prepped 2.4.0 in unstable as per your suggestion. I have an n=1  
comfirmation that upgrading from 2.3.9 works (with the IMAP backend, that  
is).


However, before I push to salsa I'd like some discussion or guidance on the  
webserver configs. Ideally Z-push would provide more or less the same  
functionality as with kopano-webapp, but currently it doesn't..

I think in general we can do three things:

a) Provide config that can be included in an existing ssl-enabled vhost and  
   works without further changes;
b) provide a completely separate vhost config in which a few parameters  
   (primarily server name and ssl certs) should be changed before it works;
c) provide config with a lot of possible options and let the user decide for  
   himself what is wanted.

The kopano-webapp package provides option B for Apache and Nginx and A for  
lighttpd. Z-push provides A for Apache and lighttpd and nothing (yet) for  
Nginx (and the lighttpd config isn't even working OOTB, so we need some extra  
instructions there).

The nice thing about the include-in-existing-vhost config is that it can  
work without any additional actions by the user. That's what we have for  
Apache now. Then again, it might not be what a user wants, and depends on  
assumptions (such as php-fpm being available, for nginx) that might not be  
true.

So, what's your preference here? Config for a separate vhost, or config  
that is ready to be included in an existing vhost? Or both (such as webapp  
already has for apache), do nothing automatically and let the user decide?


Personally I lean to the method that you're using in kopano-webapp for  
apache. Provide both a vhost config and a main config, and give the user the  
option to do either, but do nothing automatically.


And one other point. Z-push on Nginx works only if used with php-fpm. When I  
started here, I thought having separate packages for webserver configs  
wasn't such a good idea, because a package that's split up too much is a  
reason for rejection, according to the FTP-masters Reject FAQ. But it does  
mean z-push cannot depend on php-fpm for it's nginx config. So I'm having  
second thoughts about it.

What do you think about re-introducing those packages for Z-push?


I hope I'm not bikeshedding again, and sorry if I'm overthinking things.


The current plan is to push 2.4.0-1 to salsa with config as is, and then sort  
out all the webserver config stuff in 2.4.0-2. Is that acceptable?


Cheers,

Roel