Subject: Re: Upgrading Champion Server release 1.2 to Champion Server release 2.1?
From: Dan Burcaw (dburcaw@terraplex.com)
Date: Mon Feb 25 2002 - 13:41:47 MST
> > > 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.
1.2.1 -> 2.x *should* be possible with yup technology. I haven't had time
to hash out a HOWOT :(
> 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.
Yes. We know have our build process chrooted so it would allow our
build machines to have chroots associated with each rev of YDL.
In the past we'd have to keep old revisions on a machine here or there
and as machines are limited, this hasn't always been easily doable.
>
> 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.
I agree and I think we should be able to do this in the future, especially
as I shake out a few more features of our chroot build environment.
That said, there will absolutely be an update path from 2.x -> 3.x.
Due to the nature of upgrades we can't suggest this option as
clean installs are always better, but it will be a functional part
of the distribution with 3.0 (although I'm getting a little head of
myself... ;-)
-Dan
--Regards, Dan Burcaw Terra Soft Solutions, Inc. http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Mon Feb 25 2002 - 13:41:48 MST