[Server-devel] XS 0.5 upgrade notes

[Jerry Vonau]

Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Jerry Vonau <jvonau at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Well, since /etc/yum.conf is provided by yum itself, there should of been a
>> yum.conf.rpm(olpc?)new file created as not to overwrite our modified one.
> 
> Ok - I've pushed out a new xs-config that should address the issue.
> The problem is that the yum.conf file in xs-0.4 was tampered with from
> a %post script. Nasty stuff, so the user 'hasn't changed it' but rpm
> things it's changed.
> 
> There's a sane and safe workaround -- but your peer review is more
> than welcome -- in the new xs-config. Can you (or Douglas) confirm
> that the old file we want to replace has a sha1 of
> 2f12835cb11f100be169abcc8bff72525a25cff7 ?
> 
> The patch is here:
> http://dev.laptop.org/git?p=projects/xs-config;a=commitdiff;h=b81ed4df7a1a534fcf8c2249e739a03def3c75dd
> 
>> Think the best way out of this is to have xs-release move/rename the current
>> yum.conf file.
> 
> Well, xs-release is doing the right thing, but the old xs-config made
> a mess of it all.
> 
> Hmmm. Perhaps the patch I've done should be actually be placed in
> xs-release instead.
> 
Your fix should work fine.

>> Since the topic of "yum upgrades" came up, is this support wanted? I'm
>> thinking that this could be doable from the cdrom and/or across the net.
> 
> Yes. I don't know if it's reasonable for a 0.4->0.5 upgrade as it's
> rather large and full of nasty odd corner cases. In other words, it
> may work but if it breaks I don't think it's worthwhile to fix it.
> Going forward 0.5->0.6->0.7 will probably be all F9 based so yum
> updates will be trivial. When we move to F10 or F11 we'll have to
> evaluate whether it's within reach. The good news is that the Fedora
> team seems to be interested in polishing the "in place" update
> machinery (which I assume is yum), so I want to ride on that wave if
> possible.
> 
I tried a yum .4 -> .5, the change in the network scripts makes this 
rather unworkable, best to use anaconda here at least for .4 -> .5. 
Using yum updates after .5 should be a non-issue.

>> To help make this installation easier to use, we may want to define a
>> "group" in the comps.xml file. This would allow you to install the
>> xs-release rpm, to activate the repos, then do a "yum groupinstall
>> xs-school-server" then your off and running...
> 
> Is that better than xs-pkgs? 
Well, for anaconda, not really. For yum, the listing of the xs-* file 
with mandatory for our group would install the listed files when you use 
  "yum [groupinstall/groupupgrade] ourgroup ". It's more like shorthand 
for "yum install xs-config xs-pkgs xs-....." Also should offer the 
chance not to install some packages that we my not want installed by 
default.

> My concern is that comps.xml is not
> modular AFAIK -- there is just one, so we can patch it, but then we'll
> want to merge with the upstream one. Yes, we can do it, but it seems
> awkward. I'm not clear on how we publish it either - does it become
> published as part of our repo? 

Yes, the changed comps.xml file becomes part of the repo when you use -g 
(to point to the edited comp file) with createrepo.

> Do we have to convince Fedora to carry
> our changes to comps.xml or users to download ours and point their yum
> config to it?
> 
Nether, the comps file would be merged with the stock one by yum. I'll 
need to review yum for anything that may of changed in respect to group 
handling when 2 comp files are present.

> IOWs, I understand how a metapackage works much better :-)
> 
>> I'll have some time to throw at this in a day or so, if there is any
>> interest.
> 
> Great to have you back on board!

Just had other stuff on the front burner.

Jerry