February 2009 - openSUSE Features - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[openFATE 302923] handle redirection to mirrors robustly
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 03 Feb '09

03 Feb '09

Feature changed by: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) Feature #302923, revision 22 Title: handle redirection to mirrors robustly openSUSE-11.0: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky (visnov) reject date: 2007-11-28 15:42:20 reject reason: Out of scope for 11.0 Priority Requester: Neutral openSUSE-11.1: Rejected by Matthias Eckermann (mge1512) reject date: 2008-07-22 23:04:50 reject reason: Postponing, will not be ready. Priority Requester: Neutral openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Neutral Requested by: Ján Kupec (jkupec) Description: The proposal is to try other mirrors from a mirror list (from the redirector?) if an error occurs on some of the mirrors while providing a file from http/ftp repository. See the references for more details. References: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=337410 http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-buildservice/2007-10/msg00170.html http://en.opensuse.org/Libzypp/Failover http://code.google.com/soc/2008/suse/appinfo.html?csaid=6F1844AB23B67E06 Discussion: #1: Stephan Kulow (coolo) (2007-11-20 11:15:49) I would be strictly against having an own mirror list. The decision was to go with the redirector (or NCC for SLE) and be done with mirrors. If that does not work, then we have to do this whole thing again, not adding untested work arounds to the product. #2: Stephan Kulow (coolo) (2007-11-20 11:16:55) so I would reject this. But it's basically "Eval by Klaas" now #3: Klaas Freitag (kfreitag) (2007-12-03 09:49:44) I agree with Coolos and Peters statements, I would also reject. #4: Klaas Freitag (kfreitag) (2008-06-12 10:06:42) I have to revert my statement that I made before in comment #3, this problem is more serious than realised in the first look. First, it should be noted that we do not control mirrors nor we do have the chance to really influence them. That means that if a mirrors decides to not longer mirror or to switch off or whatever, we have to live with it. However if a customer is sticky to a mirror that is not longer available he would not get any packages from it and thus installation or update fails. The worst thing about that is that this seems to happen regularly but we do not realise that because we're not involved. A solution would be to have a list of possible mirrors that is used by the software installation stack to find a working mirror. Peter knows much more here. But I am not sure at the moment if not Yast/zypper already has this functionality in 11.0? #5: Peter Poeml (poeml) (2008-10-01 11:58:38) YaST/zypper in 11.1 will have preliminary support for this. The essential part of http://en.opensuse.org/Libzypp/Failover has been implemented during a GSoC project this year. See http://lists.opensuse.org/zypp-devel/2008-09/msg00142.html for the status. There is a number of things left to do, like * making it the default * better debuggability - show what it does * better progress report * testing * integration into the install system so it is available during installation Further features from the proposal (mirror preference, simultaneous downloads) are not tackled yet. #6: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-07 16:29:58) I would like to see robust redirection, if possible. The details about a list, probably should not be in the feature description. #7: Todd R (theblackcat) (2009-01-22 22:20:45) Would this also be able to handle changes in the Buildservice, like renaming or moving of a certain Buildservice repository? #8: Peter Poeml (poeml) (2009-01-23 11:56:48) (reply to #7) No, that is outside the scope. Changing repositories when the system is upgraded to a next major version is also outside the scope. Maybe that can be covered by http://en.opensuse.org/Standards/Repository_Index_Service, if I am not mistaking it. + #9: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-03 16:28:54) + Today playing with aria (I am trying to switch the default in factory) + I found out an interesting switch: + --server-stat-of=file --server-stat-if=file + The first one ouputs the mirror statistics of the servers used, and the + second one uses its as input: + cat stats host=download.opensuse.org, protocol=http, dl_speed=0, + last_updated=1233674714, status=OK host=widehat.opensuse.org, + protocol=http, dl_speed=8525008, last_updated=1233674714, status=OK + It may make sense to make the MediaAria backend to store this in + var/cache/zypp and use it as input for next time too. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/302923

1 0

[openFATE 305336] [NONCODE] Ship man page for every executable
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 03 Feb '09

03 Feb '09

Feature changed by: Michael Loeffler (sprudel24) Feature #305336, revision 16 Title: [NONCODE] Ship man page for every executable openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Mandatory Requested by: Matthias Eckermann (mge1512) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: User / Administrator should find a dedicated man page for every executable in openSUSE and SUSE Linux Enterprise systems. This should - be implemented starting with openSUSE 11.2. + be implemented starting with openSUSE 11.2. At + http://en.opensuse.org/Manual_Pages/Missing a list of all packages with + missing man pages can be found. Discussion: #2: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) (2008-10-22 15:00:11) I agree with the intention, but shouldn't it be rather 'documentation for each executable'? Newer stuff uses mostly info-pages, afaiks #3: Matthias Eckermann (mge1512) (2008-11-10 14:31:15) (reply to #2) It is valid to have a pointer to the info pages in the man-pages, sure. But man-pages are the UNIX proposed way of doing documentation. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/305336

1 0

[openFATE 305336] [NONCODE] Ship man page for every executable
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 03 Feb '09

03 Feb '09

Feature changed by: Matthias Eckermann (mge1512) Feature #305336, revision 15 Title: [NONCODE] Ship man page for every executable openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Mandatory Requested by: Matthias Eckermann (mge1512) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: User / Administrator should find a dedicated man page for every - executable in SLE 11 SP 1. This should be implemented starting with - openSUSE 11.2. + executable in openSUSE and SUSE Linux Enterprise systems. This should + be implemented starting with openSUSE 11.2. - Business case (Partner benefit): - openSUSE.org: UNIX "parity". Discussion: #2: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) (2008-10-22 15:00:11) I agree with the intention, but shouldn't it be rather 'documentation for each executable'? Newer stuff uses mostly info-pages, afaiks #3: Matthias Eckermann (mge1512) (2008-11-10 14:31:15) (reply to #2) It is valid to have a pointer to the info pages in the man-pages, sure. But man-pages are the UNIX proposed way of doing documentation. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/305336

1 0

[openFATE 305634] Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

Feature changed by: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) Feature #305634, revision 60 Title: Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Mandatory Info Provider: Robert Davies (robopensuse) Requested by: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: With the 11.2 cycle, we want to offer users the ability to perform a live system upgrade in the manner of Debian's dist-upgrade. For the purpose of this cycle, we want to support dist-upgrade from the previous version (11.1) only, as this is a sufficiently complicated problem as is. From the user's view, the difference is between being able to update the system incrementally within the given version or service pack running, to being ble to migrate with a system command ("zypper dup" or similar) to a higher version altogether. In the Debian experience, the set of base distributions is not necessarily limited, but it has been Ubuntu's practice to define what starting points other than "release n-1" are allowed (for instance, all LTS versions are purported to be able to "apt dist-upgrade" to the top of the line, although I have heard of problems trying to jump two years - 6.06->8.10 - in a fell swoop in this manner :-). In the openSUSE scope, we should aim to be able to "dup" between incremental versions, starting from 11.1 to 11.2, and later 11.x to 12.0. Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: With the introduction of the Zypper stack to SLE, we finally reached the state of a featureful (which YOU was not) and fast, reliable (which ZLM was not) update stack in the platform. For enterprise use, some tweaks are still desirable (changelogs, rollback, ...) which we are looking at, as well as improvements on the Enterprise management front, which we are working on with our SRM colleagues. The only really significant competitive feature we are missing at this point is the Debian/Ubuntu dist-upgrade functionality, which has a powerful psychological impact at the Enterprise level and a much more tangible impact at the small user / single user level: many with no IT department do use Ubuntu these days on the basis that "chasing" Fedora and openSUSE along the six-month upgrade cycle is too much for them, and feel they can save time on Ubuntu with the combination of dist- upgrade and the longer LTS cycle. The rationale for pursuing this is to revoke the special status of coolness this functionality gives Ubuntu, and to terminate the negative influence that may have on our SLE sales (from the expert's personal opinion, the preference then easily spills into purchasing). Discussion: #1: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-07 20:42:15) This is the #1 feature in the systems management scope for 11.2 - I have no doubt it will be fun :-) #4: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 11:32:53) Passing to mls for technical evaluation (solver + autobuild) #5: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 12:48:10) Any hint on what features are currently missing? #6: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 13:30:57) (reply to #5) From the top of my head: How to handle * Library ABI changes (e.g. major gcc/g++ upgrades) ? * Core package changes (e.g. devs.rpm to udev) ? * Kernel changes (if application/deamons need a specific kernel abi, dbus comes into mind) ? * Failure handling (network breakdown, package update errors, ...) ? * Booting of the new kernel ? #7: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 14:45:09) (reply to #6) And debian does this in some way? #8: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-17 12:43:42) (reply to #7) The distupgrade feature differs from changing source list and doing upgrade, so some utility process could be started. They may require some documented procedure to be followed, for "tough" changes. But ABI change, how long since ELF/glibc was introduced? C++ ABI ought not be relevant for upgrade process, they are "just" applications and libaries to be updated. Failure handling - you are told to back up your system first, it is "best effort" not guaranteed. The less you have installed the more likely it is to succeed. Debian offer choice of kernels, this may "punt" the problem to a user controlled install and select from GRUB menu. Debian have apt-cache possibility, to create central pool of packages, to decrease liklihood of network troubles, as well as huge number CD and DVD iso's. #9: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-01-17 15:24:35) (reply to #8) The glibc internal ABI changes frequently. Means, running applications will continue to use the old glibc with the old ABI, but installed are already the new plugins => running applications can crash. #12: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:36:30) (reply to #9) But your upgrade tools are buggy if they are built to rely on "plugins". If you try to dist upgrade a live system within GUI, with all software running, and no breakage, you aim impossibly high. The point is, Debian have had very positive user comments for years about this feature, despite there being many caveats and no guarantee of success. #13: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:42:55) (reply to #12) That wasn't clear. The upgrade tools are built so they won't suffer from changes. It is reasonable to ask user to not be running uncessary applications during a dist upgrade. #16: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:19:55) (reply to #12) Thorsten is talking about general applications. Not plugins. #10: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) (2009-01-20 03:36:38) (reply to #8) ABI is important during the upgrade process, I have seen applications crashing if you upgrade running a desktop enviroment, however we need to worry more about other stuff first IMHO. #11: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-01-29 16:51:48) I think the "Debian" part of the title is missleading if what we want is just to support dup officially. I would like to see a list from some "Debian expert" on how to Debian handles the issues Klaus described above. Appart of the network failure (included in another feature: commit) I ignore (and did not experience during my old Debian times) if Debian does anything special on dist- upgrade which give them the honour to name this feature "Debian like". Otherwise this feature should be closed as "done", (or just waiting for the commit refactoring). Federico, as you named the feature "Debian-like", It would be helpful to know, appart of the download-first feature, what are you missing from Debian so we can reach that point. #14: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:54:26) (reply to #11) Technically you may be right, but that does not solve the perceived problem for end users who want a very well tested, and documented upgrade path. 11.1 shipped with release notes without solutions for problems folk hit (eg) PAM stuff). #15: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:22:12) (reply to #14) Exactly, but if we don't know what specific problems are we hitting during distupgrade the feature has no real work and specific problems can be tracked as bugs. FATE is not a place for "make this better" without concrete requirements or "make an unfalible distupgrade". If requester, prjmgr, or pm expects anything to be done in the area, we need at least: * A list of problems we hit during dist upgrade (I am aware of one specific, which is download-install sequence if network goes down) * The scope. As you mention, asking to close every application (or service) is not much to ask. Therefore the scope has to be set, because if the scope is "distupgrade and glbc upgrade while oracle process hospital monitoring equipment transactions" then this is a very expensive feature. #17: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:21:02) (reply to #14) btw, can you describe in technical detail the pam upgrade problem so we can document it? #18: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-02-02 10:26:58) (reply to #17) Yes, the PAM maintainers would like to know more details, too. #19: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 13:45:04) (reply to #18) There were a number of different forum poster's hitting it, just after 11.1 released (I think due to zypper dup not YaST upgrade and therefore unreported to BugZilla). It is not something I had, because I did fresh installs. Interestingly though I have used Debian less, I have done several dist-upgrade's, simply because it is expected to work well. So it is a mistake to focus on specific tech issues alone. This problem is also about expectations and user perceptions. Announcing "support" for dist upgrade and appealing for test, so work rounds can be found, for release notes at time matters to. #21: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) (2009-02-02 15:29:32) (reply to #19) as you failed to elaborate on the problem, I will.. Some people end with broken /etc/pam.d/login they have the following line session required pam_resmgr.so but that module is gone, and rpm upgrade does not remove that line (probably because that file has been modified) #24: JP Rosevear (jproseve) (2009-02-02 10:15:19) (reply to #21) Isn't that simply a packaging problem? #25: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-02-02 19:42:45) (reply to #24) In this case, it looks like a packaging problem, indeed. However, we had more complicated upgrade tasks in the past, like dropping devs.rpm and running udev instead. See Removing devs.rpm (http://en.opensuse.org/Software_Management/Upgrade/Devs_Rpm) for a discussion of the problem. + #26: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-02-02 19:43:24) (reply to #21) + Whats the bug number for this problem ? #20: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 14:48:34) On Scope, here are the Release Notes for Lenny - http://www.uk.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ 4.1.4 - Prepare a safe environment for the upgrade - text mode or via ssh login, Article on how to go from Etch to Lenny - http://www.debianadmin.com/howto-upgrade-from-debian-etch-40-to-lenny-50.ht… #22: Manuel Trujillo (toomany) (2009-02-02 15:44:44) I think this is a really helpful characteristic, because a lot of people like me, use openSUSE as server, and is a true hell to upgrade servers in any datacenter, at kilometers off distance. I hope this feature will be a reallity in the next 11.2. #23: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 15:46:27) (reply to #22) Please, if you just want to express your favorites, use the voting feature. Comments is for discussion around solving the problem itself. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/305634

1 0

[openFATE 305634] Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

Feature changed by: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) Feature #305634, revision 59 Title: Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Mandatory Info Provider: Robert Davies (robopensuse) Requested by: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: With the 11.2 cycle, we want to offer users the ability to perform a live system upgrade in the manner of Debian's dist-upgrade. For the purpose of this cycle, we want to support dist-upgrade from the previous version (11.1) only, as this is a sufficiently complicated problem as is. From the user's view, the difference is between being able to update the system incrementally within the given version or service pack running, to being ble to migrate with a system command ("zypper dup" or similar) to a higher version altogether. In the Debian experience, the set of base distributions is not necessarily limited, but it has been Ubuntu's practice to define what starting points other than "release n-1" are allowed (for instance, all LTS versions are purported to be able to "apt dist-upgrade" to the top of the line, although I have heard of problems trying to jump two years - 6.06->8.10 - in a fell swoop in this manner :-). In the openSUSE scope, we should aim to be able to "dup" between incremental versions, starting from 11.1 to 11.2, and later 11.x to 12.0. Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: With the introduction of the Zypper stack to SLE, we finally reached the state of a featureful (which YOU was not) and fast, reliable (which ZLM was not) update stack in the platform. For enterprise use, some tweaks are still desirable (changelogs, rollback, ...) which we are looking at, as well as improvements on the Enterprise management front, which we are working on with our SRM colleagues. The only really significant competitive feature we are missing at this point is the Debian/Ubuntu dist-upgrade functionality, which has a powerful psychological impact at the Enterprise level and a much more tangible impact at the small user / single user level: many with no IT department do use Ubuntu these days on the basis that "chasing" Fedora and openSUSE along the six-month upgrade cycle is too much for them, and feel they can save time on Ubuntu with the combination of dist- upgrade and the longer LTS cycle. The rationale for pursuing this is to revoke the special status of coolness this functionality gives Ubuntu, and to terminate the negative influence that may have on our SLE sales (from the expert's personal opinion, the preference then easily spills into purchasing). Discussion: #1: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-07 20:42:15) This is the #1 feature in the systems management scope for 11.2 - I have no doubt it will be fun :-) #4: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 11:32:53) Passing to mls for technical evaluation (solver + autobuild) #5: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 12:48:10) Any hint on what features are currently missing? #6: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 13:30:57) (reply to #5) From the top of my head: How to handle * Library ABI changes (e.g. major gcc/g++ upgrades) ? * Core package changes (e.g. devs.rpm to udev) ? * Kernel changes (if application/deamons need a specific kernel abi, dbus comes into mind) ? * Failure handling (network breakdown, package update errors, ...) ? * Booting of the new kernel ? #7: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 14:45:09) (reply to #6) And debian does this in some way? #8: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-17 12:43:42) (reply to #7) The distupgrade feature differs from changing source list and doing upgrade, so some utility process could be started. They may require some documented procedure to be followed, for "tough" changes. But ABI change, how long since ELF/glibc was introduced? C++ ABI ought not be relevant for upgrade process, they are "just" applications and libaries to be updated. Failure handling - you are told to back up your system first, it is "best effort" not guaranteed. The less you have installed the more likely it is to succeed. Debian offer choice of kernels, this may "punt" the problem to a user controlled install and select from GRUB menu. Debian have apt-cache possibility, to create central pool of packages, to decrease liklihood of network troubles, as well as huge number CD and DVD iso's. #9: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-01-17 15:24:35) (reply to #8) The glibc internal ABI changes frequently. Means, running applications will continue to use the old glibc with the old ABI, but installed are already the new plugins => running applications can crash. #12: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:36:30) (reply to #9) But your upgrade tools are buggy if they are built to rely on "plugins". If you try to dist upgrade a live system within GUI, with all software running, and no breakage, you aim impossibly high. The point is, Debian have had very positive user comments for years about this feature, despite there being many caveats and no guarantee of success. #13: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:42:55) (reply to #12) That wasn't clear. The upgrade tools are built so they won't suffer from changes. It is reasonable to ask user to not be running uncessary applications during a dist upgrade. #16: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:19:55) (reply to #12) Thorsten is talking about general applications. Not plugins. #10: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) (2009-01-20 03:36:38) (reply to #8) ABI is important during the upgrade process, I have seen applications crashing if you upgrade running a desktop enviroment, however we need to worry more about other stuff first IMHO. #11: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-01-29 16:51:48) I think the "Debian" part of the title is missleading if what we want is just to support dup officially. I would like to see a list from some "Debian expert" on how to Debian handles the issues Klaus described above. Appart of the network failure (included in another feature: commit) I ignore (and did not experience during my old Debian times) if Debian does anything special on dist- upgrade which give them the honour to name this feature "Debian like". Otherwise this feature should be closed as "done", (or just waiting for the commit refactoring). Federico, as you named the feature "Debian-like", It would be helpful to know, appart of the download-first feature, what are you missing from Debian so we can reach that point. #14: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:54:26) (reply to #11) Technically you may be right, but that does not solve the perceived problem for end users who want a very well tested, and documented upgrade path. 11.1 shipped with release notes without solutions for problems folk hit (eg) PAM stuff). #15: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:22:12) (reply to #14) Exactly, but if we don't know what specific problems are we hitting during distupgrade the feature has no real work and specific problems can be tracked as bugs. FATE is not a place for "make this better" without concrete requirements or "make an unfalible distupgrade". If requester, prjmgr, or pm expects anything to be done in the area, we need at least: * A list of problems we hit during dist upgrade (I am aware of one specific, which is download-install sequence if network goes down) * The scope. As you mention, asking to close every application (or service) is not much to ask. Therefore the scope has to be set, because if the scope is "distupgrade and glbc upgrade while oracle process hospital monitoring equipment transactions" then this is a very expensive feature. #17: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:21:02) (reply to #14) btw, can you describe in technical detail the pam upgrade problem so we can document it? #18: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-02-02 10:26:58) (reply to #17) Yes, the PAM maintainers would like to know more details, too. #19: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 13:45:04) (reply to #18) There were a number of different forum poster's hitting it, just after 11.1 released (I think due to zypper dup not YaST upgrade and therefore unreported to BugZilla). It is not something I had, because I did fresh installs. Interestingly though I have used Debian less, I have done several dist-upgrade's, simply because it is expected to work well. So it is a mistake to focus on specific tech issues alone. This problem is also about expectations and user perceptions. Announcing "support" for dist upgrade and appealing for test, so work rounds can be found, for release notes at time matters to. #21: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) (2009-02-02 15:29:32) (reply to #19) as you failed to elaborate on the problem, I will.. Some people end with broken /etc/pam.d/login they have the following line session required pam_resmgr.so but that module is gone, and rpm upgrade does not remove that line (probably because that file has been modified) #24: JP Rosevear (jproseve) (2009-02-02 10:15:19) (reply to #21) Isn't that simply a packaging problem? + #25: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-02-02 19:42:45) (reply to #24) + In this case, it looks like a packaging problem, indeed. + However, we had more complicated upgrade tasks in the past, like + dropping devs.rpm and running udev instead. + See Removing devs.rpm + (http://en.opensuse.org/Software_Management/Upgrade/Devs_Rpm) for a + discussion of the problem. #20: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 14:48:34) On Scope, here are the Release Notes for Lenny - http://www.uk.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ 4.1.4 - Prepare a safe environment for the upgrade - text mode or via ssh login, Article on how to go from Etch to Lenny - http://www.debianadmin.com/howto-upgrade-from-debian-etch-40-to-lenny-50.ht… #22: Manuel Trujillo (toomany) (2009-02-02 15:44:44) I think this is a really helpful characteristic, because a lot of people like me, use openSUSE as server, and is a true hell to upgrade servers in any datacenter, at kilometers off distance. I hope this feature will be a reallity in the next 11.2. #23: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 15:46:27) (reply to #22) Please, if you just want to express your favorites, use the voting feature. Comments is for discussion around solving the problem itself. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/305634

1 0

[openFATE 305634] Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

Feature changed by: JP Rosevear (jproseve) Feature #305634, revision 58 Title: Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Mandatory Info Provider: Robert Davies (robopensuse) Requested by: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: With the 11.2 cycle, we want to offer users the ability to perform a live system upgrade in the manner of Debian's dist-upgrade. For the purpose of this cycle, we want to support dist-upgrade from the previous version (11.1) only, as this is a sufficiently complicated problem as is. From the user's view, the difference is between being able to update the system incrementally within the given version or service pack running, to being ble to migrate with a system command ("zypper dup" or similar) to a higher version altogether. In the Debian experience, the set of base distributions is not necessarily limited, but it has been Ubuntu's practice to define what starting points other than "release n-1" are allowed (for instance, all LTS versions are purported to be able to "apt dist-upgrade" to the top of the line, although I have heard of problems trying to jump two years - 6.06->8.10 - in a fell swoop in this manner :-). In the openSUSE scope, we should aim to be able to "dup" between incremental versions, starting from 11.1 to 11.2, and later 11.x to 12.0. Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: With the introduction of the Zypper stack to SLE, we finally reached the state of a featureful (which YOU was not) and fast, reliable (which ZLM was not) update stack in the platform. For enterprise use, some tweaks are still desirable (changelogs, rollback, ...) which we are looking at, as well as improvements on the Enterprise management front, which we are working on with our SRM colleagues. The only really significant competitive feature we are missing at this point is the Debian/Ubuntu dist-upgrade functionality, which has a powerful psychological impact at the Enterprise level and a much more tangible impact at the small user / single user level: many with no IT department do use Ubuntu these days on the basis that "chasing" Fedora and openSUSE along the six-month upgrade cycle is too much for them, and feel they can save time on Ubuntu with the combination of dist- upgrade and the longer LTS cycle. The rationale for pursuing this is to revoke the special status of coolness this functionality gives Ubuntu, and to terminate the negative influence that may have on our SLE sales (from the expert's personal opinion, the preference then easily spills into purchasing). Discussion: #1: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-07 20:42:15) This is the #1 feature in the systems management scope for 11.2 - I have no doubt it will be fun :-) #4: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 11:32:53) Passing to mls for technical evaluation (solver + autobuild) #5: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 12:48:10) Any hint on what features are currently missing? #6: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 13:30:57) (reply to #5) From the top of my head: How to handle * Library ABI changes (e.g. major gcc/g++ upgrades) ? * Core package changes (e.g. devs.rpm to udev) ? * Kernel changes (if application/deamons need a specific kernel abi, dbus comes into mind) ? * Failure handling (network breakdown, package update errors, ...) ? * Booting of the new kernel ? #7: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 14:45:09) (reply to #6) And debian does this in some way? #8: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-17 12:43:42) (reply to #7) The distupgrade feature differs from changing source list and doing upgrade, so some utility process could be started. They may require some documented procedure to be followed, for "tough" changes. But ABI change, how long since ELF/glibc was introduced? C++ ABI ought not be relevant for upgrade process, they are "just" applications and libaries to be updated. Failure handling - you are told to back up your system first, it is "best effort" not guaranteed. The less you have installed the more likely it is to succeed. Debian offer choice of kernels, this may "punt" the problem to a user controlled install and select from GRUB menu. Debian have apt-cache possibility, to create central pool of packages, to decrease liklihood of network troubles, as well as huge number CD and DVD iso's. #9: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-01-17 15:24:35) (reply to #8) The glibc internal ABI changes frequently. Means, running applications will continue to use the old glibc with the old ABI, but installed are already the new plugins => running applications can crash. #12: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:36:30) (reply to #9) But your upgrade tools are buggy if they are built to rely on "plugins". If you try to dist upgrade a live system within GUI, with all software running, and no breakage, you aim impossibly high. The point is, Debian have had very positive user comments for years about this feature, despite there being many caveats and no guarantee of success. #13: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:42:55) (reply to #12) That wasn't clear. The upgrade tools are built so they won't suffer from changes. It is reasonable to ask user to not be running uncessary applications during a dist upgrade. #16: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:19:55) (reply to #12) Thorsten is talking about general applications. Not plugins. #10: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) (2009-01-20 03:36:38) (reply to #8) ABI is important during the upgrade process, I have seen applications crashing if you upgrade running a desktop enviroment, however we need to worry more about other stuff first IMHO. #11: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-01-29 16:51:48) I think the "Debian" part of the title is missleading if what we want is just to support dup officially. I would like to see a list from some "Debian expert" on how to Debian handles the issues Klaus described above. Appart of the network failure (included in another feature: commit) I ignore (and did not experience during my old Debian times) if Debian does anything special on dist- upgrade which give them the honour to name this feature "Debian like". Otherwise this feature should be closed as "done", (or just waiting for the commit refactoring). Federico, as you named the feature "Debian-like", It would be helpful to know, appart of the download-first feature, what are you missing from Debian so we can reach that point. #14: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:54:26) (reply to #11) Technically you may be right, but that does not solve the perceived problem for end users who want a very well tested, and documented upgrade path. 11.1 shipped with release notes without solutions for problems folk hit (eg) PAM stuff). #15: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:22:12) (reply to #14) Exactly, but if we don't know what specific problems are we hitting during distupgrade the feature has no real work and specific problems can be tracked as bugs. FATE is not a place for "make this better" without concrete requirements or "make an unfalible distupgrade". If requester, prjmgr, or pm expects anything to be done in the area, we need at least: * A list of problems we hit during dist upgrade (I am aware of one specific, which is download-install sequence if network goes down) * The scope. As you mention, asking to close every application (or service) is not much to ask. Therefore the scope has to be set, because if the scope is "distupgrade and glbc upgrade while oracle process hospital monitoring equipment transactions" then this is a very expensive feature. #17: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:21:02) (reply to #14) btw, can you describe in technical detail the pam upgrade problem so we can document it? #18: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-02-02 10:26:58) (reply to #17) Yes, the PAM maintainers would like to know more details, too. #19: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 13:45:04) (reply to #18) There were a number of different forum poster's hitting it, just after 11.1 released (I think due to zypper dup not YaST upgrade and therefore unreported to BugZilla). It is not something I had, because I did fresh installs. Interestingly though I have used Debian less, I have done several dist-upgrade's, simply because it is expected to work well. So it is a mistake to focus on specific tech issues alone. This problem is also about expectations and user perceptions. Announcing "support" for dist upgrade and appealing for test, so work rounds can be found, for release notes at time matters to. #21: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) (2009-02-02 15:29:32) (reply to #19) as you failed to elaborate on the problem, I will.. Some people end with broken /etc/pam.d/login they have the following line session required pam_resmgr.so but that module is gone, and rpm upgrade does not remove that line (probably because that file has been modified) + #24: JP Rosevear (jproseve) (2009-02-02 10:15:19) (reply to #21) + Isn't that simply a packaging problem? #20: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 14:48:34) On Scope, here are the Release Notes for Lenny - http://www.uk.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ 4.1.4 - Prepare a safe environment for the upgrade - text mode or via ssh login, Article on how to go from Etch to Lenny - http://www.debianadmin.com/howto-upgrade-from-debian-etch-40-to-lenny-50.ht… #22: Manuel Trujillo (toomany) (2009-02-02 15:44:44) I think this is a really helpful characteristic, because a lot of people like me, use openSUSE as server, and is a true hell to upgrade servers in any datacenter, at kilometers off distance. I hope this feature will be a reallity in the next 11.2. #23: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 15:46:27) (reply to #22) Please, if you just want to express your favorites, use the voting feature. Comments is for discussion around solving the problem itself. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/305634

1 0

[openFATE 305634] Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

Feature changed by: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) Feature #305634, revision 56 Title: Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Mandatory Info Provider: Robert Davies (robopensuse) Requested by: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: With the 11.2 cycle, we want to offer users the ability to perform a live system upgrade in the manner of Debian's dist-upgrade. For the purpose of this cycle, we want to support dist-upgrade from the previous version (11.1) only, as this is a sufficiently complicated problem as is. From the user's view, the difference is between being able to update the system incrementally within the given version or service pack running, to being ble to migrate with a system command ("zypper dup" or similar) to a higher version altogether. In the Debian experience, the set of base distributions is not necessarily limited, but it has been Ubuntu's practice to define what starting points other than "release n-1" are allowed (for instance, all LTS versions are purported to be able to "apt dist-upgrade" to the top of the line, although I have heard of problems trying to jump two years - 6.06->8.10 - in a fell swoop in this manner :-). In the openSUSE scope, we should aim to be able to "dup" between incremental versions, starting from 11.1 to 11.2, and later 11.x to 12.0. Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: With the introduction of the Zypper stack to SLE, we finally reached the state of a featureful (which YOU was not) and fast, reliable (which ZLM was not) update stack in the platform. For enterprise use, some tweaks are still desirable (changelogs, rollback, ...) which we are looking at, as well as improvements on the Enterprise management front, which we are working on with our SRM colleagues. The only really significant competitive feature we are missing at this point is the Debian/Ubuntu dist-upgrade functionality, which has a powerful psychological impact at the Enterprise level and a much more tangible impact at the small user / single user level: many with no IT department do use Ubuntu these days on the basis that "chasing" Fedora and openSUSE along the six-month upgrade cycle is too much for them, and feel they can save time on Ubuntu with the combination of dist- upgrade and the longer LTS cycle. The rationale for pursuing this is to revoke the special status of coolness this functionality gives Ubuntu, and to terminate the negative influence that may have on our SLE sales (from the expert's personal opinion, the preference then easily spills into purchasing). Discussion: #1: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-07 20:42:15) This is the #1 feature in the systems management scope for 11.2 - I have no doubt it will be fun :-) #4: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 11:32:53) Passing to mls for technical evaluation (solver + autobuild) #5: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 12:48:10) Any hint on what features are currently missing? #6: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 13:30:57) (reply to #5) From the top of my head: How to handle * Library ABI changes (e.g. major gcc/g++ upgrades) ? * Core package changes (e.g. devs.rpm to udev) ? * Kernel changes (if application/deamons need a specific kernel abi, dbus comes into mind) ? * Failure handling (network breakdown, package update errors, ...) ? * Booting of the new kernel ? #7: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 14:45:09) (reply to #6) And debian does this in some way? #8: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-17 12:43:42) (reply to #7) The distupgrade feature differs from changing source list and doing upgrade, so some utility process could be started. They may require some documented procedure to be followed, for "tough" changes. But ABI change, how long since ELF/glibc was introduced? C++ ABI ought not be relevant for upgrade process, they are "just" applications and libaries to be updated. Failure handling - you are told to back up your system first, it is "best effort" not guaranteed. The less you have installed the more likely it is to succeed. Debian offer choice of kernels, this may "punt" the problem to a user controlled install and select from GRUB menu. Debian have apt-cache possibility, to create central pool of packages, to decrease liklihood of network troubles, as well as huge number CD and DVD iso's. #9: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-01-17 15:24:35) (reply to #8) The glibc internal ABI changes frequently. Means, running applications will continue to use the old glibc with the old ABI, but installed are already the new plugins => running applications can crash. #12: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:36:30) (reply to #9) But your upgrade tools are buggy if they are built to rely on "plugins". If you try to dist upgrade a live system within GUI, with all software running, and no breakage, you aim impossibly high. The point is, Debian have had very positive user comments for years about this feature, despite there being many caveats and no guarantee of success. #13: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:42:55) (reply to #12) That wasn't clear. The upgrade tools are built so they won't suffer from changes. It is reasonable to ask user to not be running uncessary applications during a dist upgrade. #16: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:19:55) (reply to #12) Thorsten is talking about general applications. Not plugins. #10: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) (2009-01-20 03:36:38) (reply to #8) ABI is important during the upgrade process, I have seen applications crashing if you upgrade running a desktop enviroment, however we need to worry more about other stuff first IMHO. #11: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-01-29 16:51:48) I think the "Debian" part of the title is missleading if what we want is just to support dup officially. I would like to see a list from some "Debian expert" on how to Debian handles the issues Klaus described above. Appart of the network failure (included in another feature: commit) I ignore (and did not experience during my old Debian times) if Debian does anything special on dist- upgrade which give them the honour to name this feature "Debian like". Otherwise this feature should be closed as "done", (or just waiting for the commit refactoring). Federico, as you named the feature "Debian-like", It would be helpful to know, appart of the download-first feature, what are you missing from Debian so we can reach that point. #14: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:54:26) (reply to #11) Technically you may be right, but that does not solve the perceived problem for end users who want a very well tested, and documented upgrade path. 11.1 shipped with release notes without solutions for problems folk hit (eg) PAM stuff). #15: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:22:12) (reply to #14) Exactly, but if we don't know what specific problems are we hitting during distupgrade the feature has no real work and specific problems can be tracked as bugs. FATE is not a place for "make this better" without concrete requirements or "make an unfalible distupgrade". If requester, prjmgr, or pm expects anything to be done in the area, we need at least: * A list of problems we hit during dist upgrade (I am aware of one specific, which is download-install sequence if network goes down) * The scope. As you mention, asking to close every application (or service) is not much to ask. Therefore the scope has to be set, because if the scope is "distupgrade and glbc upgrade while oracle process hospital monitoring equipment transactions" then this is a very expensive feature. #17: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:21:02) (reply to #14) btw, can you describe in technical detail the pam upgrade problem so we can document it? #18: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-02-02 10:26:58) (reply to #17) Yes, the PAM maintainers would like to know more details, too. #19: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 13:45:04) (reply to #18) There were a number of different forum poster's hitting it, just after 11.1 released (I think due to zypper dup not YaST upgrade and therefore unreported to BugZilla). It is not something I had, because I did fresh installs. Interestingly though I have used Debian less, I have done several dist-upgrade's, simply because it is expected to work well. So it is a mistake to focus on specific tech issues alone. This problem is also about expectations and user perceptions. Announcing "support" for dist upgrade and appealing for test, so work rounds can be found, for release notes at time matters to. #21: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) (2009-02-02 15:29:32) (reply to #19) as you failed to elaborate on the problem, I will.. Some people end with broken /etc/pam.d/login they have the following line session required pam_resmgr.so but that module is gone, and rpm upgrade does not remove that line (probably because that file has been modified) #20: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 14:48:34) On Scope, here are the Release Notes for Lenny - http://www.uk.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ 4.1.4 - Prepare a safe environment for the upgrade - text mode or via ssh login, Article on how to go from Etch to Lenny - http://www.debianadmin.com/howto-upgrade-from-debian-etch-40-to-lenny-50.ht… #22: Manuel Trujillo (toomany) (2009-02-02 15:44:44) I think this is a really helpful characteristic, because a lot of people like me, use openSUSE as server, and is a true hell to upgrade servers in any datacenter, at kilometers off distance. I hope this feature will be a reallity in the next 11.2. + #23: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 15:46:27) (reply to #22) + Please, if you just want to express your favorites, use the voting + feature. Comments is for discussion around solving the problem itself. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/305634

1 0

[openFATE 305634] Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

Feature changed by: Manuel Trujillo (toomany) Feature #305634, revision 55 Title: Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Mandatory Info Provider: Robert Davies (robopensuse) Requested by: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: With the 11.2 cycle, we want to offer users the ability to perform a live system upgrade in the manner of Debian's dist-upgrade. For the purpose of this cycle, we want to support dist-upgrade from the previous version (11.1) only, as this is a sufficiently complicated problem as is. From the user's view, the difference is between being able to update the system incrementally within the given version or service pack running, to being ble to migrate with a system command ("zypper dup" or similar) to a higher version altogether. In the Debian experience, the set of base distributions is not necessarily limited, but it has been Ubuntu's practice to define what starting points other than "release n-1" are allowed (for instance, all LTS versions are purported to be able to "apt dist-upgrade" to the top of the line, although I have heard of problems trying to jump two years - 6.06->8.10 - in a fell swoop in this manner :-). In the openSUSE scope, we should aim to be able to "dup" between incremental versions, starting from 11.1 to 11.2, and later 11.x to 12.0. Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: With the introduction of the Zypper stack to SLE, we finally reached the state of a featureful (which YOU was not) and fast, reliable (which ZLM was not) update stack in the platform. For enterprise use, some tweaks are still desirable (changelogs, rollback, ...) which we are looking at, as well as improvements on the Enterprise management front, which we are working on with our SRM colleagues. The only really significant competitive feature we are missing at this point is the Debian/Ubuntu dist-upgrade functionality, which has a powerful psychological impact at the Enterprise level and a much more tangible impact at the small user / single user level: many with no IT department do use Ubuntu these days on the basis that "chasing" Fedora and openSUSE along the six-month upgrade cycle is too much for them, and feel they can save time on Ubuntu with the combination of dist- upgrade and the longer LTS cycle. The rationale for pursuing this is to revoke the special status of coolness this functionality gives Ubuntu, and to terminate the negative influence that may have on our SLE sales (from the expert's personal opinion, the preference then easily spills into purchasing). Discussion: #1: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-07 20:42:15) This is the #1 feature in the systems management scope for 11.2 - I have no doubt it will be fun :-) #4: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 11:32:53) Passing to mls for technical evaluation (solver + autobuild) #5: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 12:48:10) Any hint on what features are currently missing? #6: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 13:30:57) (reply to #5) From the top of my head: How to handle * Library ABI changes (e.g. major gcc/g++ upgrades) ? * Core package changes (e.g. devs.rpm to udev) ? * Kernel changes (if application/deamons need a specific kernel abi, dbus comes into mind) ? * Failure handling (network breakdown, package update errors, ...) ? * Booting of the new kernel ? #7: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 14:45:09) (reply to #6) And debian does this in some way? #8: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-17 12:43:42) (reply to #7) The distupgrade feature differs from changing source list and doing upgrade, so some utility process could be started. They may require some documented procedure to be followed, for "tough" changes. But ABI change, how long since ELF/glibc was introduced? C++ ABI ought not be relevant for upgrade process, they are "just" applications and libaries to be updated. Failure handling - you are told to back up your system first, it is "best effort" not guaranteed. The less you have installed the more likely it is to succeed. Debian offer choice of kernels, this may "punt" the problem to a user controlled install and select from GRUB menu. Debian have apt-cache possibility, to create central pool of packages, to decrease liklihood of network troubles, as well as huge number CD and DVD iso's. #9: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-01-17 15:24:35) (reply to #8) The glibc internal ABI changes frequently. Means, running applications will continue to use the old glibc with the old ABI, but installed are already the new plugins => running applications can crash. #12: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:36:30) (reply to #9) But your upgrade tools are buggy if they are built to rely on "plugins". If you try to dist upgrade a live system within GUI, with all software running, and no breakage, you aim impossibly high. The point is, Debian have had very positive user comments for years about this feature, despite there being many caveats and no guarantee of success. #13: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:42:55) (reply to #12) That wasn't clear. The upgrade tools are built so they won't suffer from changes. It is reasonable to ask user to not be running uncessary applications during a dist upgrade. #16: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:19:55) (reply to #12) Thorsten is talking about general applications. Not plugins. #10: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) (2009-01-20 03:36:38) (reply to #8) ABI is important during the upgrade process, I have seen applications crashing if you upgrade running a desktop enviroment, however we need to worry more about other stuff first IMHO. #11: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-01-29 16:51:48) I think the "Debian" part of the title is missleading if what we want is just to support dup officially. I would like to see a list from some "Debian expert" on how to Debian handles the issues Klaus described above. Appart of the network failure (included in another feature: commit) I ignore (and did not experience during my old Debian times) if Debian does anything special on dist- upgrade which give them the honour to name this feature "Debian like". Otherwise this feature should be closed as "done", (or just waiting for the commit refactoring). Federico, as you named the feature "Debian-like", It would be helpful to know, appart of the download-first feature, what are you missing from Debian so we can reach that point. #14: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:54:26) (reply to #11) Technically you may be right, but that does not solve the perceived problem for end users who want a very well tested, and documented upgrade path. 11.1 shipped with release notes without solutions for problems folk hit (eg) PAM stuff). #15: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:22:12) (reply to #14) Exactly, but if we don't know what specific problems are we hitting during distupgrade the feature has no real work and specific problems can be tracked as bugs. FATE is not a place for "make this better" without concrete requirements or "make an unfalible distupgrade". If requester, prjmgr, or pm expects anything to be done in the area, we need at least: * A list of problems we hit during dist upgrade (I am aware of one specific, which is download-install sequence if network goes down) * The scope. As you mention, asking to close every application (or service) is not much to ask. Therefore the scope has to be set, because if the scope is "distupgrade and glbc upgrade while oracle process hospital monitoring equipment transactions" then this is a very expensive feature. #17: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:21:02) (reply to #14) btw, can you describe in technical detail the pam upgrade problem so we can document it? #18: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-02-02 10:26:58) (reply to #17) Yes, the PAM maintainers would like to know more details, too. #19: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 13:45:04) (reply to #18) There were a number of different forum poster's hitting it, just after 11.1 released (I think due to zypper dup not YaST upgrade and therefore unreported to BugZilla). It is not something I had, because I did fresh installs. Interestingly though I have used Debian less, I have done several dist-upgrade's, simply because it is expected to work well. So it is a mistake to focus on specific tech issues alone. This problem is also about expectations and user perceptions. Announcing "support" for dist upgrade and appealing for test, so work rounds can be found, for release notes at time matters to. #21: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) (2009-02-02 15:29:32) (reply to #19) as you failed to elaborate on the problem, I will.. Some people end with broken /etc/pam.d/login they have the following line session required pam_resmgr.so but that module is gone, and rpm upgrade does not remove that line (probably because that file has been modified) #20: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 14:48:34) On Scope, here are the Release Notes for Lenny - http://www.uk.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ 4.1.4 - Prepare a safe environment for the upgrade - text mode or via ssh login, Article on how to go from Etch to Lenny - http://www.debianadmin.com/howto-upgrade-from-debian-etch-40-to-lenny-50.ht… + #22: Manuel Trujillo (toomany) (2009-02-02 15:44:44) + I think this is a really helpful characteristic, because a lot of + people like me, use openSUSE as server, and is a true hell to upgrade + servers in any datacenter, at kilometers off distance. I hope this + feature will be a reallity in the next 11.2. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/305634

1 0

[openFATE 305634] Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

Feature changed by: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) Feature #305634, revision 54 Title: Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Mandatory Info Provider: Robert Davies (robopensuse) Requested by: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: With the 11.2 cycle, we want to offer users the ability to perform a live system upgrade in the manner of Debian's dist-upgrade. For the purpose of this cycle, we want to support dist-upgrade from the previous version (11.1) only, as this is a sufficiently complicated problem as is. From the user's view, the difference is between being able to update the system incrementally within the given version or service pack running, to being ble to migrate with a system command ("zypper dup" or similar) to a higher version altogether. In the Debian experience, the set of base distributions is not necessarily limited, but it has been Ubuntu's practice to define what starting points other than "release n-1" are allowed (for instance, all LTS versions are purported to be able to "apt dist-upgrade" to the top of the line, although I have heard of problems trying to jump two years - 6.06->8.10 - in a fell swoop in this manner :-). In the openSUSE scope, we should aim to be able to "dup" between incremental versions, starting from 11.1 to 11.2, and later 11.x to 12.0. Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: With the introduction of the Zypper stack to SLE, we finally reached the state of a featureful (which YOU was not) and fast, reliable (which ZLM was not) update stack in the platform. For enterprise use, some tweaks are still desirable (changelogs, rollback, ...) which we are looking at, as well as improvements on the Enterprise management front, which we are working on with our SRM colleagues. The only really significant competitive feature we are missing at this point is the Debian/Ubuntu dist-upgrade functionality, which has a powerful psychological impact at the Enterprise level and a much more tangible impact at the small user / single user level: many with no IT department do use Ubuntu these days on the basis that "chasing" Fedora and openSUSE along the six-month upgrade cycle is too much for them, and feel they can save time on Ubuntu with the combination of dist- upgrade and the longer LTS cycle. The rationale for pursuing this is to revoke the special status of coolness this functionality gives Ubuntu, and to terminate the negative influence that may have on our SLE sales (from the expert's personal opinion, the preference then easily spills into purchasing). Discussion: #1: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-07 20:42:15) This is the #1 feature in the systems management scope for 11.2 - I have no doubt it will be fun :-) #4: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 11:32:53) Passing to mls for technical evaluation (solver + autobuild) #5: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 12:48:10) Any hint on what features are currently missing? #6: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 13:30:57) (reply to #5) From the top of my head: How to handle * Library ABI changes (e.g. major gcc/g++ upgrades) ? * Core package changes (e.g. devs.rpm to udev) ? * Kernel changes (if application/deamons need a specific kernel abi, dbus comes into mind) ? * Failure handling (network breakdown, package update errors, ...) ? * Booting of the new kernel ? #7: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 14:45:09) (reply to #6) And debian does this in some way? #8: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-17 12:43:42) (reply to #7) The distupgrade feature differs from changing source list and doing upgrade, so some utility process could be started. They may require some documented procedure to be followed, for "tough" changes. But ABI change, how long since ELF/glibc was introduced? C++ ABI ought not be relevant for upgrade process, they are "just" applications and libaries to be updated. Failure handling - you are told to back up your system first, it is "best effort" not guaranteed. The less you have installed the more likely it is to succeed. Debian offer choice of kernels, this may "punt" the problem to a user controlled install and select from GRUB menu. Debian have apt-cache possibility, to create central pool of packages, to decrease liklihood of network troubles, as well as huge number CD and DVD iso's. #9: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-01-17 15:24:35) (reply to #8) The glibc internal ABI changes frequently. Means, running applications will continue to use the old glibc with the old ABI, but installed are already the new plugins => running applications can crash. #12: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:36:30) (reply to #9) But your upgrade tools are buggy if they are built to rely on "plugins". If you try to dist upgrade a live system within GUI, with all software running, and no breakage, you aim impossibly high. The point is, Debian have had very positive user comments for years about this feature, despite there being many caveats and no guarantee of success. #13: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:42:55) (reply to #12) That wasn't clear. The upgrade tools are built so they won't suffer from changes. It is reasonable to ask user to not be running uncessary applications during a dist upgrade. #16: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:19:55) (reply to #12) Thorsten is talking about general applications. Not plugins. #10: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) (2009-01-20 03:36:38) (reply to #8) ABI is important during the upgrade process, I have seen applications crashing if you upgrade running a desktop enviroment, however we need to worry more about other stuff first IMHO. #11: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-01-29 16:51:48) I think the "Debian" part of the title is missleading if what we want is just to support dup officially. I would like to see a list from some "Debian expert" on how to Debian handles the issues Klaus described above. Appart of the network failure (included in another feature: commit) I ignore (and did not experience during my old Debian times) if Debian does anything special on dist- upgrade which give them the honour to name this feature "Debian like". Otherwise this feature should be closed as "done", (or just waiting for the commit refactoring). Federico, as you named the feature "Debian-like", It would be helpful to know, appart of the download-first feature, what are you missing from Debian so we can reach that point. #14: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:54:26) (reply to #11) Technically you may be right, but that does not solve the perceived problem for end users who want a very well tested, and documented upgrade path. 11.1 shipped with release notes without solutions for problems folk hit (eg) PAM stuff). #15: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:22:12) (reply to #14) Exactly, but if we don't know what specific problems are we hitting during distupgrade the feature has no real work and specific problems can be tracked as bugs. FATE is not a place for "make this better" without concrete requirements or "make an unfalible distupgrade". If requester, prjmgr, or pm expects anything to be done in the area, we need at least: * A list of problems we hit during dist upgrade (I am aware of one specific, which is download-install sequence if network goes down) * The scope. As you mention, asking to close every application (or service) is not much to ask. Therefore the scope has to be set, because if the scope is "distupgrade and glbc upgrade while oracle process hospital monitoring equipment transactions" then this is a very expensive feature. #17: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:21:02) (reply to #14) btw, can you describe in technical detail the pam upgrade problem so we can document it? #18: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-02-02 10:26:58) (reply to #17) Yes, the PAM maintainers would like to know more details, too. #19: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 13:45:04) (reply to #18) There were a number of different forum poster's hitting it, just after 11.1 released (I think due to zypper dup not YaST upgrade and therefore unreported to BugZilla). It is not something I had, because I did fresh installs. Interestingly though I have used Debian less, I have done several dist-upgrade's, simply because it is expected to work well. So it is a mistake to focus on specific tech issues alone. This problem is also about expectations and user perceptions. Announcing "support" for dist upgrade and appealing for test, so work rounds can be found, for release notes at time matters to. + #21: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) (2009-02-02 15:29:32) (reply to #19) + as you failed to elaborate on the problem, I will.. Some people end + with broken /etc/pam.d/login they have the following line + session required pam_resmgr.so but that module is gone, and rpm + upgrade does not remove that line (probably because that file has been + modified) #20: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 14:48:34) On Scope, here are the Release Notes for Lenny - http://www.uk.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ 4.1.4 - Prepare a safe environment for the upgrade - text mode or via ssh login, Article on how to go from Etch to Lenny - http://www.debianadmin.com/howto-upgrade-from-debian-etch-40-to-lenny-50.ht… -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/305634

1 0

[openFATE 305634] Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

Feature changed by: Robert Davies (robopensuse) Feature #305634, revision 53 Title: Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Mandatory Info Provider: Robert Davies (robopensuse) Requested by: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: With the 11.2 cycle, we want to offer users the ability to perform a live system upgrade in the manner of Debian's dist-upgrade. For the purpose of this cycle, we want to support dist-upgrade from the previous version (11.1) only, as this is a sufficiently complicated problem as is. From the user's view, the difference is between being able to update the system incrementally within the given version or service pack running, to being ble to migrate with a system command ("zypper dup" or similar) to a higher version altogether. In the Debian experience, the set of base distributions is not necessarily limited, but it has been Ubuntu's practice to define what starting points other than "release n-1" are allowed (for instance, all LTS versions are purported to be able to "apt dist-upgrade" to the top of the line, although I have heard of problems trying to jump two years - 6.06->8.10 - in a fell swoop in this manner :-). In the openSUSE scope, we should aim to be able to "dup" between incremental versions, starting from 11.1 to 11.2, and later 11.x to 12.0. Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: With the introduction of the Zypper stack to SLE, we finally reached the state of a featureful (which YOU was not) and fast, reliable (which ZLM was not) update stack in the platform. For enterprise use, some tweaks are still desirable (changelogs, rollback, ...) which we are looking at, as well as improvements on the Enterprise management front, which we are working on with our SRM colleagues. The only really significant competitive feature we are missing at this point is the Debian/Ubuntu dist-upgrade functionality, which has a powerful psychological impact at the Enterprise level and a much more tangible impact at the small user / single user level: many with no IT department do use Ubuntu these days on the basis that "chasing" Fedora and openSUSE along the six-month upgrade cycle is too much for them, and feel they can save time on Ubuntu with the combination of dist- upgrade and the longer LTS cycle. The rationale for pursuing this is to revoke the special status of coolness this functionality gives Ubuntu, and to terminate the negative influence that may have on our SLE sales (from the expert's personal opinion, the preference then easily spills into purchasing). Discussion: #1: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-07 20:42:15) This is the #1 feature in the systems management scope for 11.2 - I have no doubt it will be fun :-) #4: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 11:32:53) Passing to mls for technical evaluation (solver + autobuild) #5: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 12:48:10) Any hint on what features are currently missing? #6: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 13:30:57) (reply to #5) From the top of my head: How to handle * Library ABI changes (e.g. major gcc/g++ upgrades) ? * Core package changes (e.g. devs.rpm to udev) ? * Kernel changes (if application/deamons need a specific kernel abi, dbus comes into mind) ? * Failure handling (network breakdown, package update errors, ...) ? * Booting of the new kernel ? #7: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 14:45:09) (reply to #6) And debian does this in some way? #8: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-17 12:43:42) (reply to #7) The distupgrade feature differs from changing source list and doing upgrade, so some utility process could be started. They may require some documented procedure to be followed, for "tough" changes. But ABI change, how long since ELF/glibc was introduced? C++ ABI ought not be relevant for upgrade process, they are "just" applications and libaries to be updated. Failure handling - you are told to back up your system first, it is "best effort" not guaranteed. The less you have installed the more likely it is to succeed. Debian offer choice of kernels, this may "punt" the problem to a user controlled install and select from GRUB menu. Debian have apt-cache possibility, to create central pool of packages, to decrease liklihood of network troubles, as well as huge number CD and DVD iso's. #9: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-01-17 15:24:35) (reply to #8) The glibc internal ABI changes frequently. Means, running applications will continue to use the old glibc with the old ABI, but installed are already the new plugins => running applications can crash. #12: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:36:30) (reply to #9) But your upgrade tools are buggy if they are built to rely on "plugins". If you try to dist upgrade a live system within GUI, with all software running, and no breakage, you aim impossibly high. The point is, Debian have had very positive user comments for years about this feature, despite there being many caveats and no guarantee of success. #13: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:42:55) (reply to #12) That wasn't clear. The upgrade tools are built so they won't suffer from changes. It is reasonable to ask user to not be running uncessary applications during a dist upgrade. #16: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:19:55) (reply to #12) Thorsten is talking about general applications. Not plugins. #10: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) (2009-01-20 03:36:38) (reply to #8) ABI is important during the upgrade process, I have seen applications crashing if you upgrade running a desktop enviroment, however we need to worry more about other stuff first IMHO. #11: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-01-29 16:51:48) I think the "Debian" part of the title is missleading if what we want is just to support dup officially. I would like to see a list from some "Debian expert" on how to Debian handles the issues Klaus described above. Appart of the network failure (included in another feature: commit) I ignore (and did not experience during my old Debian times) if Debian does anything special on dist- upgrade which give them the honour to name this feature "Debian like". Otherwise this feature should be closed as "done", (or just waiting for the commit refactoring). Federico, as you named the feature "Debian-like", It would be helpful to know, appart of the download-first feature, what are you missing from Debian so we can reach that point. #14: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:54:26) (reply to #11) Technically you may be right, but that does not solve the perceived problem for end users who want a very well tested, and documented upgrade path. 11.1 shipped with release notes without solutions for problems folk hit (eg) PAM stuff). #15: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:22:12) (reply to #14) Exactly, but if we don't know what specific problems are we hitting during distupgrade the feature has no real work and specific problems can be tracked as bugs. FATE is not a place for "make this better" without concrete requirements or "make an unfalible distupgrade". If requester, prjmgr, or pm expects anything to be done in the area, we need at least: * A list of problems we hit during dist upgrade (I am aware of one specific, which is download-install sequence if network goes down) * The scope. As you mention, asking to close every application (or service) is not much to ask. Therefore the scope has to be set, because if the scope is "distupgrade and glbc upgrade while oracle process hospital monitoring equipment transactions" then this is a very expensive feature. #17: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:21:02) (reply to #14) btw, can you describe in technical detail the pam upgrade problem so we can document it? #18: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-02-02 10:26:58) (reply to #17) Yes, the PAM maintainers would like to know more details, too. #19: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 13:45:04) (reply to #18) There were a number of different forum poster's hitting it, just after 11.1 released (I think due to zypper dup not YaST upgrade and therefore unreported to BugZilla). It is not something I had, because I did fresh installs. Interestingly though I have used Debian less, I have done several dist-upgrade's, simply because it is expected to work well. So it is a mistake to focus on specific tech issues alone. This problem is also about expectations and user perceptions. Announcing "support" for dist upgrade and appealing for test, so work rounds can be found, for release notes at time matters to. + #20: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 14:48:34) + On Scope, here are the Release Notes for Lenny - + http://www.uk.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ 4.1.4 - + Prepare a safe environment for the upgrade - text mode or via ssh + login, Article on how to go from Etch to Lenny - http://www.debianadmin.com/howto-upgrade-from-debian-etch-40-to-lenny-50.ht… -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/305634

1 0