Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add debian/ubuntu igitlab installer #136

wants to merge 1 commit into


None yet
2 participants

Add iGitLab installer scripts for ubuntu and debian





axilleas commented Nov 10, 2013

Ok, I finally found some time to play with this. Testing in Ubuntu 12.04/13.10 and Debian 7.

I ran on this issue, maybe the sed somehow has to do something with this? Haven't investigated further.

What I'd like to see:

  1. A freshly installed Debian doesn't have sudo preinstalled and the script assumes that. Maybe we could implement a function that checks whether sudo is installed and if not it installs it, add the user to the sudo group, suggests a logout/login and a rerun of the script.
  2. A complete stop of the script when I press Ctrl^C. Now, it skips one section and jumps to the next one.
  3. A saner way to check the new user's db password. The previous time I ran the script on Ubuntu 12.04, I was away from the pc not able to see the output and somehow the installation finished with the password in database.yml unchanged, resulting rake gitlab:setup not being able to setup the database. Which brings me to no4.
  4. I would really like to see all the output of the script in a log file, or if you want, the important ones like the db setup. In #135 @doublerebel has this functionality, maybe take a peek from there? A combo of your scripts would be best.

Other than that the script is fine :)
Thanks again for your time.

Edit: Actually, I see that in your recipes branch you started working on these issues.

tripflex commented Jun 5, 2014

Heya long time no see, eh? I saw the pkgr.io site pretty neat, is this still something that is of intrest to have updated? Been a while since I worked on it and figure it's about time to show a little love to it 👍


axilleas commented Jun 5, 2014

Definitely! I was thinking maybe add a conf file where this script could read from. That case the user would have to change the conf and not the script itself. What do you think?

Good idea, I went ahead and updated the script for 6-9-stable, will have to do some testing tomorrow on it:

I'll look at the conf file here soon after I test it too and will let you know 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment