Split the script

[dashohoxha]

This is not a bug, but rather an improvement request. Sorry if this is not the right place, but I couldn't find a better place for discussing it.

It seems like installing BBB and installing Greenlight are almost independent of each other. So, it doesn't make much sense (in my opinion) to use the same script for installing both of them. Instead, we could have the script bbb-install.sh for installing BBB, and gl-install.sh for installing Greenlight.

In my opinion, this would not make the installation process more difficult for the users. On the other hand, it could reduce the size and complexity of the script significantly. It would also increase the flexibility. For example tomorrow maybe there will be an alternative to Greenlight, or maybe one prefers gl-v2 instead of gl-v3 (personally I find gl-v2 better than gl-v3, without looking at its code or internal structure). With a separate installation script this could be much easier to handle.

I can give this split a try, if there is consensus that this is the right thing to do.

By the way, tracking versions by copying bbb-install-2.6.sh to bbb-install-2.7.sh does not seem the right thing to me. This is what version control (Git) is used for. We can use Git branches instead (like v2.6, v2.7, etc.) One thing that is wrong with copying is that you loose the history of modifications. Another thing is that it is more difficult to apply fixes that are done to v2.6 to v2.7 (if they are branches it is often possible to use git cherry-pick).

[ffdixon]

Hi @dashohoxha,

Thanks for your input (and thanks for the help on the project). Your right about using tags instead of naming conventions, especially about keeping the history.

The bbb-install.sh script has evolved over the past few years, with our goal of ensuring you run the script, BigBlueButton will run.

I'm not sure about breaking up the script just yet. There are probably ways to better structure the script and split the functionality. The running of the script would need to download other scripts, which I think makes it a bit harder for someone to review the scripts ahead of time.

There are capabilities such an uninstall -u option that lend itself well to having in a single script.

[dashohoxha]

I'm not sure about breaking up the script just yet. There are probably ways to better structure the script and split the functionality. The running of the script would need to download other scripts, which I think makes it a bit harder for someone to review the scripts ahead of time.

Another option might be to install greenlight as a Debian package, for example bbb-greenlight-v2 and bbb-greenlight-v3. But I am not sure how difficult or feasible this is (I don't have much experience with developing Debian packages).

Your right about using tags instead of naming conventions, especially about keeping the history.

I think that using branches is better than using tags, because tags cannot accept modifications (quick fixes after the release). However a tag can be converted to a branch whenever needed, so it's fine to start with tags.