On 09/01/2009 03:38 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
Nathan
Kinder wrote:
On 09/01/2009 02:23 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
I'm envisioning something like patch files
in an RPM - things that can easily come and go depending on what needs
to be done for a particular release. In this case, instead of patch
files, these would be short perl or shell scripts. These would be
invoked once or once per instance.
One way would be to have a large script which would be edited for each
release, adding or deleting code as needed. This is the way it worked
in the past - the file quickly becomes "unruly". However, we would
only have to touch Makefile.am once to add the upgrade script.
You mean like the migrate4to6, migrate5to6, etc. stuff?
Sort of, but much smaller. And not necessarily version specific - see
below.
Another way would be to have small scripts that could come and go with
each release. The disadvantage is that we would be constantly
adding/deleting items from Makefile.am. This is what I would prefer.
I prefer the scriptlet approach too.
How do you envision dealing with upgrading from different versions?
For example, we would need to do much different work upgrading from 1.1
-> 1.3 than we would from 1.2 -> 1.3. Will there be some way for
the scriptlet to specify what versions it needs to be run for?
I'm hoping to avoid looking at explicit versions. Instead, I would
prefer that the scriptlet would determine if the work it needed to do
is already done. For example, upgrading from 1.2.0 to 1.2.x would need
to add the syntax validation plugin. The scriptlet should check to see
if the syntax validation plugin exists before adding it. I can't
really think of anything which would require an explicit version.
That makes sense. We may want to talk with Rob C. since I think he's
done something similar for FreeIPA's upgrade procedure with regards to
DS plug-in config. Perhaps he has some insight.
Before invoking the update scripts, the code would create some sort of
context, containing information about the config directory, each
instance, and an identity and credentials that can be used to manage
each instance. For example, when you run setup-ds-admin.pl -u, it uses
the uid=admin identity and asks for the password, then uses that
identity to manage each instance. However, in the case where there is
just the base ds package, we would need some way to ask or specify the
identity for each instance. For the UI, I don't think there's any way
around just simply asking for the username and password for each
instance (we can default the username to directory manager or the last
value specified). For .inf file usage, I was thinking about adding a
new section - [slapd-instancename] - in which you could specify the
RootDN and RootDNPwd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
389-devel mailing list
389-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
389-devel mailing list
389-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-devel
--
389-devel mailing list
389-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-devel
|
--
389-devel mailing list
389-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-devel
