I am currently working on migrating a non-Composer TYPO3 project to Composer.
From what I have seen and read, the autoloading changes and the file structure changes. You cannot import extensions via the extension manager anymore. Also, some extensions can only be installed via composer (unless you do ugly tweaking).
Also, from a security point of view, at least one attack vector is shut down because you can no longer install extensions via the backend.
The documentation and others state that using TYPO3 with Composer is recommended but what exactly are the advantages, do these apply in all cases?
For example, in my case, I maintain one site, updating both TYPO3 and extensions is easy. In practice there probably will be no huge improvement. I think working with a package manager is cool but I also have to "sell" why I am doing this now and other tasks are not getting done.
The advantages of running TYPO3 v8/v9/v10+ in composer-based mode:
Speed improvements for PHP, as the autoloader includes the requested extensions (and used system extensions)
Only the system extensions you use are using are available in your production site
If you are using Git, you do not need to add your typo3/ folder and your vendor folder with composer-based extensions, which makes your Git repository much smaller
You can add more PHP libraries via composer that you need in your site, and can fine-grain your dependencies based on your PHP environment
The differences:
You cannot use the Extension Manager to download extensions from TER anymore, you have to use the CLI tool for fetching third-party or system extensions
You still need to activate these extensions in Extension Manager or via TYPO3 Console to update your PackageStates.php file.
All your local extensions need to either be added via a) autoload sections in your root composer.json or b) include their own composer.json and include the autoload section in there.
The statements about the folder structure is wrong, in fact, Composer allows to configure having your vendor folder OUTSIDE of your document root, which makes your website more secure IMHO, but you do not have to.
In general, if you're not used to use CLI, or using Git or a deployment strategy, composer is actually not a practical solution for TYPO3 users.
I totally get your point in that you have to get it sell it.
Getting your project running with composer isn't that hard, but does come with some pitfalls. But once you get familiar with some basic commands, you will notice that it will lower your work time.
Not in all, but in many cases, managing your project with command line tools line https://github.com/TYPO3-Console/TYPO3-Console give your more powerful and faster tools to work with. And be honest, typing in a console always look cool.
So yes, even for a 'small site', learning a new tech always rewards in the long run. You don't sell time, you sell expertice. The learning price, you do have to pay for that yourself, but you get to keep the joy that you feel when you get it to work. win-win
I have built a RPM-package for Centos 6.6 that is installed on a machine of our customer.
This package contains our own software, customized for the specific use case, but also uses the open-source package HAProxy.
HAProxy (RPM-version 1.5.4-2.el6_7.1) comes with a default-configuration in /etc/haproxy/haproxy.conf and it cannot be customized without changing this file.
But I want the configuration to be part my generated package. RPM throws an error if the /etc/haproxy/haproxy.conf file is in my package, because it is also part of the haproxy-package.
I have worked around this problem by providing a custom upstart-script which starts HAProxy with a different config file, but this does not seem to be the right way to do this.
Is there a preferred way to handle such customizations?
In cases like this, I've created an RPM which installs configuration files into a different subdirectory, and in its %post and %preun scriptlets modifies the uncooperative package's config-files:
when installing, I renamed the original config-files, and made symbolic links from those pathnames to the overwriting config-files, and
when uninstalling, the package removed the symbolic links and restored the original package's files.
Doing it that way of course meant that my config-RPM was dependent on the original RPM. A little awkward to describe, but it works.
In followup, the issue of updating was mentioned. Updating an RPM requires special handling to avoid uninstalling things. The rpm program passes a parameter $1 which you can test in the %pre and %preun scriptlets to notice that this is an upgrade and that there is no need to save the original config-files (or restore them). The rest of the scriptlet would be the same, by copying the new versions of your config-files over the others.
Further reading:
Defining installation scripts (shows the use of `$1)
RPM upgrade uninstalls the RPM
Your approach is correct. On EL6 and sysv there is no other choice than creating custom haproxy package or custom haproxy service or create script which customer runs after installation. I see creating another service as best option.
Note that on EL7 with SystemD you have much better option as you can use Drop-In feature of SystemD. For more information see:
https://coreos.com/os/docs/latest/using-systemd-drop-in-units.html
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/systemd#Drop-in_snippets
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd/User#Service_example
The usual way this is done is to have a drop-in configuration directory, e.g. /etc/httpd/conf.d/, where your package would drop its configuration, and you would tell the other daemon, e.g. httpd, to do a graceful restart in your %post/%postun.
I don't know anything about HAProxy, but a quick search implies that they do not support this configuration directory concept that has been around for many years. A few people have hacked it in, but unless it is out-of-the-box, you will run into your original problem again.
I have several applications that I wish to deploy using rpm. Some of the files in my application deployments override files from other deployed packages. Simply including the new files in the deployment package will cause rpm conflicts.
I am looking for the proper way to use rpm to update/replace already installed files.
I have already come up with a few solutions but nothing seems quite right.
Maintain custom versions of the rpms containing the original files.
This seems like a large amount of work for a relatively small reward even though it feels less like a hack than some of the other possible solutions.
Include the files in the rpm with another name and copy them over in the post section.
This would work but will mean littering the system with multiple copies of the files. Also it means additional maintenance in the rpm build spec for each file.
Use wget in the post section to replace the original files from some known server.
This is similar to the copy technique but the files wouldn't even live in the rpm. This might act like a nice central configuration authority though.
Deploy the files as new files, then use symlinks to override the originals.
This is also similar to the copy technique but with less clutter. The problem here is that some files don't behave well as symlinks.
To the best of my knowledge, RPM is not designed to permit updating / replacing existing files, so anything that you do is going to be a hack.
Of the options you list, I'd choose #1 as the least bad hack if the target systems are systems that I admin (as you say, it's more work but is the cleanest solution) and a combination of #2 and #4 (symlinks where possible, copies where not) if I'm creating the RPMs for others' systems (to avoid having to distribute a bunch of RPMs, but I'd make it very clear in the docs what I'm doing).
You haven't described which files need to be updated or replaced and how they need to be updated. Depending on the answers to those questions, you may have a couple of other options:
Many programs are designed to use a single default configuration file and also to grab configuration files from a .d subdirectory. For example, Apache uses /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf and /etc/httpd/conf.d/*.conf, so your RPMs could drop files under /etc/httpd/conf.d instead of modifying /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf. And if the files that you need to modify are config files that don't follow this pattern but could be made to, you can suggest to the package maintainers that they add this capability; this wouldn't help you immediately but would make future releases easier.
For command-line utilities like sendmail and lpr that can be provided by multiple packages, the alternatives system (see man alternatives) permits more than 1 RPM that provides these utilities to be installed side by side. Again, if the files that you need to modify are command-line utilities that don't follow this pattern but could be made to, you can suggest to the package maintainers that they add this capability.
Config file changes on systems that you administer are better managed through a tool like Cfengine or Puppet rather than through custom RPMs. I think that Red Hat favors Puppet.
If I were creating the RPMs for systems I don't administer, I'd consider using a third-party tool like Bitrock and dumping all of my stuff under /opt just so I wouldn't have to stomp on files installed by other admins' RPMs.
Edit (2019): Nowadays, Software Collections offers a useful alternative. You can create packages that install somewhere under /opt, and the Software Collections tools offer a standardized way for users to opt in to using those instead of whatever's normally installed under /usr. Red Hat uses this to distribute newer versions of tools for their otherwise stable and long-lived (i.e., older) Red Hat Enterprise Linux distributions.
You can also execute rpm -U --replacefiles --replacepkgs ..., which will give you what you want.
See here for more info on RPM %files directives:
http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html
You can use the arguments from the %post and %pre sections in the RPM scriptlets to determine if you are installing, upgrading or removing packages.
If $1 is 0 - then we're removing old stuff. Targeting 0 packages installed.
If $1 is 1 - then we're installing new stuff. Targeting a total of 1 package to be installed.
If $1 is 2 or more - then we're upgrading this package and $1 represents the number of packages already installed.
These sections help with managing files among the versions.
Keep track of what you're doing between versions and consider what one might do if they were to skip a version or two.
Have consideration for these things and you should be good to go!
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Although several thousand Emacs Lisp libraries exist, GNU Emacs, until version 24.1 did not have an (internal) package manager.
I guess that most users would agree that it is currently rather inconvenient to find, install and especially keep up-to-date Emacs Lisp libraries.
Pages that make life a bit easier
For versions of Emacs older than 24.1:
Emacs Lisp List - Problem: I see dead people (links).
Emacswiki - Problem: May contain traces of nuts (malicious code).
Emacsmirror - The package repository I am working on. Problem: No package manager supports it natively yet.
Some package managers
It's not that nobody has tried yet. (Some of these did not exist when this question was asked.)
auto-install
borg.el - Assimilate Emacs packages using Git submodules.
el-get.el - Supports many sources.
elinstall.el
epackage aka DELPS - Debian packaging concepts applied to Emacs Lisp packages.
epkg.el - This is now just a tool for browsing the Emacsmirror.
install.el
install-elisp.el
jem-pkg.el
package.el - ELPA. Seems like it will be included in Emacs 24.
UPDATE -- package.el is included in GNU Emacs, starting with version 24.1
pases.el
pelm - Command line installer; using php.
plugin.el
straight.el - Recent and experimental, has not reached 1.0 release yet.
use-package.el
XEmacs package manager
package has been included in the Emacs trunk. epkg is not ready yet and also currently not available. At least install-elisp, plugin and use-package do not seem to be actively maintained anymore.
I have created a git repository containing all these package managers as submodules.
Some utilities that might be useful
Package managers could use these utilities and/or they could be used to maintain a mirror of packages.
date-calc.el - Date calculation and parsing routines.
ell.el - Browse the Emacs Lisp List.
elm.el, elx.el, xpkg.el - Used to maintain the Emacsmirror.
genauto.el - Helps generate autoloads for your elisp packages.
inversion.el - Require specific package versions.
loadhist.el, lib-requires.el, elisp-depend.el - Commands to list Emacs Lisp library dependencies.
project-root.el - Define a project root and take actions based upon it.
strptime.el - Partial implementation of POSIX date and time parsing.
wikirel.el - Visit relevant pages on the Emacs Wiki.
Discussions about the subject at hand
emacs-devel 20080801
comp.emacs 20021121
RationalElispPackaging
The question (finally)
So - I would like to know from you what you consider important/unimportant/supplementary etc. in a package manager for Emacs.
Some ideas
Many packages (the Emacsmirror provides that largest available collection of packages, but there is no explicit support in any package manager yet).
Only packages that have been tested.
Support for more than one package archive (so people can choose between many/tested packages).
Dependency calculated based on required features only.
Dependencies take particular versions into account.
Only use versions that have been released upstream.
Use versions from version control systems if available.
Packages are categorized.
Packages can be uninstalled and updated not only installed.
Support creating fork of upstream version of packages.
Support publishing these forks.
Support choosing a fork.
After installation packages are activated.
Generate autoload files.
Integration with Emacswiki (see wikirel.el).
Users can tag, comment etc. packages and share that information.
Only FSF-assigned/GPL/FOSS software or don't care about license.
Package manager should be integrated be distributed with Emacs.
Support for easily contacting author.
Lots of metadata.
Suggest alternatives before installing a particular package.
I am hoping for these kinds of answers
Pointers to more implementations, discussions etc.
Lengthy descriptions of a set of features that make up your ideal package manager.
Descriptions of one particular desired/undesired feature. Feel free to elaborate on my ideas from above.
Surprise me.
I'm still learning Emacs, so I haven't had a chance to look into package managers, but a great feature would be to inform the user that the package is available if they try to use it but it's not on their system. For example, I wanted to edit a PHP file on a server once, and I tried
M-x php-mode
and Emacs was all like
M-x php-mode [no match]
when it should have been like
php-mode available from ftp.gnu.org. install? (y/n)
and then it would have installed and loaded up php-mode for me. That would have made my day right there.
Automatic publishing from version control
I'd love to see a standard, central, and single Emacs package manager. Right now, I'd put my money on ELPA, but there is still a long way to go.
The biggest thing that would help an Emacs package manager would be to make it super trivial to publish packages. In my opinion, I'd like to see this happen in combination with a version control system like git on a central hosted platform like GitHub -- something that would make it easy for authors to publish their packages and would make it easy for others to contribute back.
Similar to how GitHub (used to) make it easy to publish RubyGems, I'd like to see something similar in an Emacs package manager. For example, tag your repository with "vX.Y.Z" and have your elisp goodness automatically available to all.
The added benefit of using a popular backend like GitHub is that you'd immediately get a lot of exposure which should help drive its success.
What I expect most is that everything useful is on it, and works well. This requires you (or a team of maintainers) to aggressively pursue packaging everything for it, and doing whatever that involves — emailing every author of a useful package, and so on.
For instance, the reason Debian (and its derivatives: Ubuntu etc.) is so good is that you can happily use your system without ever having to install something outside the repositories, and that everything on it is thoroughly tested. The actual features of the package manager are important, but secondary to the managed packages themselves.
Easy configuration synchronization: I, like many people, use Emacs on many different computers and servers, some of them my own and some not. It would be amazing if the package manager had some sort of file which I could transfer from one computer to another; then, on the latter computer, the package manager would bring my Emacs into the state I like it in -- all the packages installed and configurations set. Combined with the ability to be able to easily install either site-wide (if one has root permissions) or as a single user, I could synchronize all of Emacsen everywhere.
I'm nearly positive that the best solution involves submitting more packages to ELPA and adding multi-source support to package.el. The Emacs maintainers have said that they would consider including package.el in version 24 as long as it pointed to an FSF repository by default.
Of course, submission also needs to be an automated process too; the current method of mailing the ELPA maintainer only works on a small scale.
No matter how this is done, the most important thing in my opinion is that it should be trivial to submit packages to the repository. At the same time, we do not want those packages to be instantly available, to guard against malicious code(and due to licensing issues). Unless there is a "trust" system in place, based on crypto signatures.
Also useful:
"metapackages", to install several packages at once.
In the same way, we should be able to install a set of elisp files, for maintainability
"Broken" packages should not be allowed to disrupt Emacs startup. This is easy and I have it implemented in my own .emacs
Ability to install files other than scripts. This is often overlooked, but very useful. You'd be able to, for instance, ship images, for icons, toolbars, etc.
Versioning:package X requires package Y > 1.0
Testing: perform basic sanity checks, testing for conflicts (keybindings, function redefinitions, functions that are expected to be present but aren't, etc).
BUG TRACKING: I can't stress the importance of this enough. Having a centralized place to report package bugs (and being able to track them) is extremely important to assure the quality of the packages.
Some sort of compressed archive seems to be best to do some of the above.
So far, a much improved ELPA seems the way to go.
I once spent some time writing a small package manager for Emacs.
http://gmarceau.qc.ca/plugin.el
I wrote:
Plugin is my attempt at creating a
package manager for Emacs. Plugin
will automatically downloads Emacs
extensions, unpacks them in a
directory, adds that directory to the
load-path, generates auto-load
annotations, and modify your dot-emacs
file. The auto-load annotations are a
little-known feature of Emacs. Once
they are generated, Emacs extensions
load quickly and incrementally, which
is really nice if you have as many
extensions installed as I do.
You will need two library files to get it to run, loop-constructs.el and record.el
I think the hackers for the iPhone got quite close to what I want, as does Ubuntu's "apt".
I like to be able to:
add
remove (package only)
remove user settings
view documentation
upgrade ( after reading the change log)
add new archive ( aka add repository )
see dependencies
see version
search for name, keyword
browse by (date added, date modified, name)
save all installed packages & settings
load set of packages & settings
I would like a main set of things that all work nicely and are the recommended way of doing whatever. Then a global set where everything working gets in. Then the ability for anyone to host their own archive.
It would be nice if this was all tied into git/svn/whatever so that you could install old versions. Make your own patches by forking off etc etc etc....
Besides the mentioned above, i expect something like debian, and other repositories - set of the stable, experemental, untested packages. Ability to add my own repositories - i use lot of the packages directly from VCS, so it could be useful to create my own packages
I think that the package manager should take a lot of inspiration from Rubygems. I also think that it should have a site like Gemcutter.
A central repository could also be nice (like Emacsmirror). This however may not be necessary if a site like Gemcutter exists that collects all packages.
I think these things are important for this to work.
Central location of some kind that collects all packages
Easy to add packages
Easy to maintain packages
Easy to contribute to other packages
Easy to install, uninstall and update packages
Possibility to add package dependencies
Common structure for all packages
So a package manager like Rubygems with a site like Gemcutter and a central repository like Emacsmirror (preferably on Github because of it's social coding) would do Emacs really good.
All in all I think that much inspiration should be taken from Rails and how Rails handles Gems.
I don't know how fresh this question is...
but the model I would like to see is CPAN. I also don't know Rubygems but it sounds similar to CPAN.
CPAN is a perl archive + library management system. When I need to write a perl program that requires... FTP or SOAP or JSON or XML or ZIP, or...etc, I can run the CPAN package manager, select the requisite package for download, view and verify the dependencies, then install everything. CPAN is mirrored .."everywhere".
CPAN works wonderfully for my purposes, and something similar for emacs would be nice to have. It also supports building C/C++ code on demand.
That's what I would like to see in emacs.
Some further comment on requirements.
explicit download of packages. No auto install. No invisible downloads. I want to ask for new libraries or new function.
I should be able to list the name/version/timestamp of installed packages.
If my friend gives me his list, I should be able to diff his emacs state against mine.
check-for-updates function. What updates are available? What do they fix?
depedency checking, verification, and download. If I install csharp-mode and it requires v5.0.28 of cc-mode, then it should confirm with me, that I must also download cc-mode.
there should be some sort of community ranking of these packages, like ranking torrents on isohunt. I want to see if a package has 3 upvotes or 3000.
"transactional" behavior. If an install goes boom, it must unwind to a last-known-good state.
failsafes. If I've put custom mods in linum.el, it should refuse to install a new version over my changes, unless I explicitly allow it. It should warn me before even starting. Do this with checksums/md5's over the existing install.
have the option of running some packages from compressed archives, like zip files. So I never have any doubt that I have not updated any of the embbedded elisp.
ability to use mirrored hosts for package distribution.
all this function should be accessible through M-x library-manageemnt or something.
Finally, it would be nice to have a way to segregate or organize libraries of functions. Hierarchical namespaces. Emacs' flat namespace is very dated. This is sort of independent but complementary to the core function of package management. I'm not a lisp guru so I don't know how hard this would be; maybe there is already a way to do it.
Package managers don't offer anything I value w.r.t. single-file elisp packages with simple dependencies: adding and deleting from site-lisp has never caused problems. It's packages that depend on external programs (e.g., ispell), multi-file packages (e.g., auctex, org-mode) that can be tricky. Can't think of any single-file elisp package with nontrivial dependencies, offhand.
For these, short of a package manager, I'd like emacs' elisp-packages to acquire test suites which can be run en masse, and which provide useful information in the event of dependency failures.