Subject: Re: Upgrading Champion Server release 1.2 to Champion Server release 2.1?
From: nathan r. hruby (nhruby@arches.uga.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 25 2002 - 13:02:38 MST
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Dan Burcaw wrote:
>
> > I'd happily leave my 1.2.1 boxes alone *IF YDL PROVIDED SECUIRTY UPDATES
> > FOR IT INSTEAD OF IGNORING IT* Goes for 2.0 as well, there no reason that
> > updates can't be pushed out via Yup for 1.2.1 and 2.0 boxes.
>
> We only really have the man power to support the current release.
> 2.1 updates work fine for 2.0, also (since it's the same major release series,
> there are not major structural changes that would effect the updates).
>
I know y'all are small, I'm just venting. Mainly I'm pissed becasue
there is was no forewarning giving little time for migration purposes. If
there actually was a 1.2.1 -> 2.x upgrade process that didn't involve
mke2fs `cat /etc/fstab` I wouldn't be complaining.
Also, if the 2.1 updates work for 2.0 why aren't they being pushed out in
yup-land? That's not a rebuild at all but a simple copy to the correct
ftp dir and a yup-arch commmand, no? Even with rebuilding 2.1 updates for
2.0, all that would need to happen is that the 2.1 src.rpm's are --rebuilt
on 2.0 for proper glibc happyness. This could be automated and proabbly
easily moved into the build process that TSS has now.
I think that it's very hard for sysadmins to keep their boxes up with the
most current release cycle just to get updates. For laptops, desktop,
etc.. it's one thing to mess around because you can stand to be down for
an afternoon while you figure things out. For a production server, that's
not an option. Also it takes time and puts stability in question. Once I
have a proven system, I want zero feature addtionas and only maintenence
updates that don't break things.
> I'd be happy to accept updates for 1.2.1 and push then out to the ftp site
> (or better yet, give a trusted individual upload access).
>
I'd love to help with this but I really don't have the time to commit, I'm
sorry. ATM, I'm planning on moving the sites I have running on YDL to a
different machine and maybe rebuilding the YDL box with 2.1 for backup
purposes or possibly a render engine.
> I've been thinking about some strategies to allow us to more easily support
> updates for at least the latest release in each major series (e.g. 1.2.1,
> 2.2, 3.2, etc..). I don't have anything done yet in this regard so
> suggestions are welcome. The main thing is automation. And no, putting
> out updates is not as simple as rpm --rebuild of a RH update.
>
True, rebuilding the updates is very very complicated, espically with
1.2.1 in view of rpm4, db3, etc... Major pain I know. But that said, it
shouldn't too hard to mark a product EOL, keep a copy running on a machine
and just patch the source tarballs from that release and --rebuild those.
This would be harder to automate into the build process I would think as
most patches against newer sources would not patch well, but still.. even
for 6 - 12 months to allow squiggle time would be (imho) a nice thing.
-n
-- ...... nathan hruby - nhruby@arches.uga.edu computer support specialist department of drama and theatre http://www.drama.uga.edu/ ......
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Mon Feb 25 2002 - 13:20:20 MST