From 2b85b853a3173ba5157e094dac0be5c21c062d51 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:14:15 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] added proposal for monkeysphere-server setup subcommand. --- ...up-subcommand-for-monkeysphere-server.mdwn | 29 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) create mode 100644 website/bugs/setup-subcommand-for-monkeysphere-server.mdwn diff --git a/website/bugs/setup-subcommand-for-monkeysphere-server.mdwn b/website/bugs/setup-subcommand-for-monkeysphere-server.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 0000000..614e471 --- /dev/null +++ b/website/bugs/setup-subcommand-for-monkeysphere-server.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +[[ meta title="proposed new monkeysphere-server subcommand: setup" ]] + +What if everything that's done in the package post-installation +scripts (aside from maybe the creation of the monkeysphere user +itself) was done with a single call to something like + + monkeysphere-server setup + +This would make things more obvious to folks installing from source +directly, and put less maintenance load on porters. The end of +`monkeysphere-server setup` could also invoke `monkeysphere-server +diagnostics` to get the admin pointed in the right direction. + +Think of this as a sort of automated "Getting Started" documentation. + +Of course, a hypothetical *full* setup command would do things like +`gen-key`, auto-modify `sshd_config`, etc. We wouldn't want to do +those things automatically without the guiding hand of the local +sysadmin. + +But perhaps we could even smooth that process with: + + monkeysphere-server setup --full + +I'd like to know what other folks think about these possibilities. +Would either of these be useful? Are they confusing? Could they be +clarified? + +--dkg -- 2.25.1