From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:14:15 +0000 (-0400)
Subject: added proposal for monkeysphere-server setup subcommand.
X-Git-Tag: monkeysphere_0.16-1~54
X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=2b85b853a3173ba5157e094dac0be5c21c062d51;p=monkeysphere.git

added proposal for monkeysphere-server setup subcommand.
---

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