Install profiles should be in their own directories
http://drupal.org/node/77549 I am not going to re-hash everything I said there, but I need to say that install profiles as they are now are not really adequate for many of the things we hope to accomplish with them. I have been building install profiles in one manner or another for 2 years now, and that patch is part of what I found were the base requirements of making install profiles work for us, and very likely anybody who runs more than 1 site on an install.
Adrian Rossouw wrote:
I am not going to re-hash everything I said there, but I need to say that install profiles as they are now are not really adequate for many of the things we hope to accomplish with them.
I have been building install profiles in one manner or another for 2 years now, and that patch is part of what I found were the base requirements of making install profiles work for us, and very likely anybody who runs more than 1 site on an install.
This looks good to me. We have a need for installing multi-site distributions where some instances have differing sets of modules and themes available from other instances. Without this patch or install config data in its own directory, there are problems with that kind of mass hosting. Can we use a different name than "install profile" to avoid confusion with other uses of the word "profile"? How about distributions and the files can be called "distfiles" (Unix precedent from rdist command) or something. Or we could be like Python and invent new names and call them "drops" or "droplets" or something. :-) ..chrisxj
On 8/8/06, Andre Molnar <mcsparkerton@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote:
Or we could be like Python and invent new names and call them "drops" or "droplets" or something. :-)
no more jargon/drupalisms please. cute yes - but equally meaningless
mambots? =)
Adrian Rossouw wrote:
On 8/8/06, *Andre Molnar* <mcsparkerton@yahoo.co.uk <mailto:mcsparkerton@yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote: > Or we could be like Python and invent new names and call > them "drops" or "droplets" or something. :-)
no more jargon/drupalisms please. cute yes - but equally meaningless
mambots? =)
I agree with Andre, no drupaljargon.
On 8/8/06 5:36 PM, Johan Forngren wrote:
Adrian Rossouw wrote:
On 8/8/06, *Andre Molnar* <mcsparkerton@yahoo.co.uk <mailto:mcsparkerton@yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote: > Or we could be like Python and invent new names and call > them "drops" or "droplets" or something. :-)
no more jargon/drupalisms please. cute yes - but equally meaningless
mambots? =)
I agree with Andre, no drupaljargon.
aww, and i was totally gonna vote for "dribbles" -- James Walker :: http://walkah.net/ :: xmpp:walkah@walkah.net
Andre Molnar wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote:
Or we could be like Python and invent new names and call them "drops" or "droplets" or something. :-)
no more jargon/drupalisms please. cute yes - but equally meaningless
andre
Agreed, as I was actually kidding. Python "eggs" and Java "jars" and other such new names for existing things are often annoying. ..chris
Druplets, not droplets ;) 2006/8/8, Chris Johnson <chris@tinpixel.com>:
Adrian Rossouw wrote:
I am not going to re-hash everything I said there, but I need to say that install profiles as they are now are not really adequate for many of the things we hope to accomplish with them.
I have been building install profiles in one manner or another for 2 years now, and that patch is part of what I found were the base requirements of making install profiles work for us, and very likely anybody who runs more than 1 site on an install.
This looks good to me. We have a need for installing multi-site distributions where some instances have differing sets of modules and themes available from other instances. Without this patch or install config data in its own directory, there are problems with that kind of mass hosting.
Can we use a different name than "install profile" to avoid confusion with other uses of the word "profile"? How about distributions and the files can be called "distfiles" (Unix precedent from rdist command) or something. Or we could be like Python and invent new names and call them "drops" or "droplets" or something. :-)
..chrisxj
Install profile is confusing . -1 for Druplisms and new jargon ... +1 on Drupal distribution. +1 on "drupal package" as well.
Khalid B wrote:
Install profile is confusing . Part of the confusion is that, grammatically, it should be "Installation profile." (Nouns can be adjectives, and nouns can be verbed, but verbs can't be adjectives.)
Installation profile works for me, but I prefer package configuration or package description. If the file will be *.profile, then package profile seems good. Gary
On 8/9/06, Gary Feldman <dpal_gaf_devel@marsdome.com> wrote:
Khalid B wrote:
Install profile is confusing . Part of the confusion is that, grammatically, it should be "Installation profile." (Nouns can be adjectives, and nouns can be verbed, but verbs can't be adjectives.)
Installation profile works for me, but I prefer package configuration or package description. If the file will be *.profile, then package profile seems good.
The main source of confusion, to me, is that it is a term with historical baggage, and its ambiguity means different things to different people. Profile can be confused with Drupal's profile module as well. Package seems to convey the right idea, and has no historical use in Drupal. How about "package set", or even just "package"?
On 8/9/06, Khalid B <kb@2bits.com> wrote:
On 8/9/06, Gary Feldman <dpal_gaf_devel@marsdome.com> wrote:
Khalid B wrote:
Install profile is confusing . Part of the confusion is that, grammatically, it should be "Installation profile." (Nouns can be adjectives, and nouns can be verbed, but verbs can't be adjectives.)
Installation profile works for me, but I prefer package configuration or package description. If the file will be *.profile, then package profile seems good.
The main source of confusion, to me, is that it is a term with historical baggage, and its ambiguity means different things to different people.
Profile can be confused with Drupal's profile module as well.
Package seems to convey the right idea, and has no historical use in Drupal.
package == something that can be installed. apt == advanced package tool (or similar) A theme is a package, and a module is a package and an engine is a package and an install profile/distribution is a package. The dependency system (with the .meta files) being developed handles dependencies between all these packages (of different types) I vote for distribution, it is very well suited for our meaning.. and the main reason we want 'install profiles' is because we want to build distributions.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Gary Feldman wrote:
Khalid B wrote:
Install profile is confusing . Part of the confusion is that, grammatically, it should be "Installation profile." (Nouns can be adjectives, and nouns can be verbed, but verbs can't be adjectives.)
Installation profile works for me, but I prefer package configuration or package description. If the file will be *.profile, then package profile seems good.
The problem with calling it a package is that it is supposed to be downloaded in a ZIP file. Now it is completely possible to ask the user to grab Drupal latest version and copy some install[ation] profile files into the folder (extract my zip file to that folder too). Install[ation] profile means that the stuff is not necceserily expected to be packages as a single pack, but will be together in installation time. Gabor
Op woensdag 9 augustus 2006 16:22, schreef Khalid B:
+1 on Drupal distribution. +1 on "drupal package" as well. My +1 on these two too.
plus: I've called my implementation "fixtures" all along. Its not a drupalism, but a rather familiar name for "fixturing" a certain state of an enviroment. Bèr
participants (10)
-
Adrian Rossouw -
Andre Molnar -
Bèr Kessels -
Chris Johnson -
Gabor Hojtsy -
Gary Feldman -
James Walker -
Johan Forngren -
Khalid B -
Konstantin Käfer