[Freeipa-devel] Fedora 20 Release

[Alexander Bokovoy]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013, Rich Megginson wrote:
>On 12/16/2013 08:07 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
>>Hello list,
>>
>>we have to decide what we will do with 389-ds-base package in Fedora 20.
>>
>>Currently, we know about following problems:
>>
>>Schema problems:
>>   https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47631 (regression)
>
>Fixed.
>
>>
>>Referential Integrity:
>>   https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47621 (new functionality)
>
>Does it matter if new functionality is a problem?
Only if there is a crash.

>
>>https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47624 (regression)
>>
>>Replication:
>>   https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47632 (?)
>>
>>Stability:
>>   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041732
>
>Fixed.  However, there is a problem with slapi-nis: 
>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1043546
slapi-nis part seems to be a double-free on plugin shutdown.
I'll look into it tomorrow morning if Nalin will not find it earlier.


>>https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47629 (we are not sure if the 
>>syncrepl really plays some role or not)
>
>How can we find out?
>
>>
>>One option is to fix 1.3.2.x as quickly as possible.
>>
>>Another option is to build 1.3.1.x for F20 with Epoch == 1 and 
>>release it as quickly as possible.
>>
>>The problem with downgrade to 1.3.1.x is that it requires manual 
>>change in dse.ldif file. You have to disable 'content 
>>synchronization' (syncrepl) and 'whoami' plugins which are not in 
>>1.3.1.x packages but were added and enabled by 1.3.2.x packages.
>>
>>In our tests, the downgraded DS server starts and works after 
>>manual dse.ldif correction (but be careful - we didn't test 
>>replication).
>>
>>Here is the main problem:
>>389-ds-base 1.3.2.8 is baked to Fedora 20 ISO images and there is 
>>not way how to replace it there. It means that somebody can do 
>>F19->F20 upgrade from ISO and *then* upgrade from repos will break 
>>his DS configuration (because of new plugins...).
>>
>>Simo thinks that this is a reason why 'downgrade package' with 
>>1.3.1.x inevitably needs automated script which will purge two 
>>missing plugins from dse.ldif.
>
>We have an upgrade/downgrade framework, it should be easy to 
>disable/remove these plugins.
>
>Is that it?  Are there any other problems found attempting to 
>downgrade 1.3.2 to 1.3.1 in F20?
Packaging issue -- epoch will have to be increased and maintained
forever. It is weird but that's what it is. And then making sure
disabling the plugins will happen only on downgrade, this is actually an
RPM trigger which is something people easily get wrong.


>>Nathan, is it manageable before Christmas? One or either way? Is 
>>you think that the downgrade is safe from data format perspective? 
>>(I mean DB format upgrades etc.?)
>
>The db format in 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 is the same, so there should be no 
>problems there.
>

-- 
/ Alexander Bokovoy