[Freeipa-devel] Fedora 20 Release

[Rich Megginson]

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?

> 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

> 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?

>
> 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.