Discussion:
[developer] Sysidtool dependency: How critical?
Dan McDonald via illumos-developer
2014-10-13 13:57:27 UTC
Permalink
I've been hammering on a problem: How to get illumos-gate to build on OI *and* OmniOS without introducing regressions on illumos-gate for OI.

One hard problem I've run into is sysidtool: We have a changeset in illumos-omnios below which basically severs the dependency on rpcbind with sysidtool:net. For OmniOS, this is no big deal. It doesn't appear to be a big deal for SmartOS as well. It does appear to be a problem for OI, for the reasons the removed comments state (preventing a dependency cycle with the new sys id).

I've made several WIP changes to illumos-gate to allow it to be built on both platforms. So far, so good, and I've reduced a lot of conflicts. I'd like to know if the below changeset from OmniOS is safe to upstream. The others I have, I believe, will be non-controversial, but this one may be.

Thanks,
Dan


===============

diff --git a/usr/src/cmd/rpcbind/bind.xml b/usr/src/cmd/rpcbind/bind.xml
index 6efc234..218593c 100644
--- a/usr/src/cmd/rpcbind/bind.xml
+++ b/usr/src/cmd/rpcbind/bind.xml
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@

Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
+ Copyright 2012 OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.

Service manifest for rpcbind

@@ -63,15 +64,6 @@
value='svc:/system/identity:node' />
</dependency>

- <dependency
- name='sysidtool'
- grouping='require_all'
- restart_on='none'
- type='service'>
- <service_fmri
- value='svc:/system/sysidtool:net' />
- </dependency>
-
<!--
rpcbind(1M) depends on multicast routes installed by the
routing-setup service, and should be started after any IPsec
diff --git a/usr/src/cmd/svc/milestone/single-user.xml b/usr/src/cmd/svc/milesto
index cbb93fd..706cc20 100644
--- a/usr/src/cmd/svc/milestone/single-user.xml
+++ b/usr/src/cmd/svc/milestone/single-user.xml
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
<!--
Copyright 2005 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
+ Copyright 2012 OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.

CDDL HEADER START

@@ -43,32 +44,6 @@

<single_instance />

- <!--
- Single-user's dependency on sysidtool is obsolete, but instead of
- removing it from this manifest, retain it here with its delete
- attribute set to true. This is to try and prevent a dependency
- cycle with the new sysidtool which declares a dependency on
- single-user. This will force the deletion of single-user's
- sysidtool dependency as soon as this manifest is imported
- (instead of waiting for upgrade to delete it).
-
- Note that this does not guarantee the prevention of a dependency
- cycle (if the new sysidtool manifest is imported before
- single-user's) - if this does occur, the code in upgrade will
- catch it - it deletes single-user's dependency and "svcadm
- clear"s sysidtool.
- -->
-
- <dependency
- name='sysidtool'
- grouping='require_all'
- restart_on='none'
- type='service'
- delete='true'>
- <service_fmri value='svc:/system/sysidtool:net' />
- <service_fmri value='svc:/system/sysidtool:system' />
- </dependency>
-
<dependency
name='nodename'
grouping='require_all'



-------------------------------------------
illumos-developer
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182179/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182179/21175072-86d49504
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175072&id_secret=21175072-abdf7b7e
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Garrett D'Amore via illumos-developer
2014-10-13 15:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Looks reasonable to me, on the face of it. But let's wait for the OI
people to chime in?

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Dan McDonald via illumos-developer <
Post by Dan McDonald via illumos-developer
I've been hammering on a problem: How to get illumos-gate to build on OI
*and* OmniOS without introducing regressions on illumos-gate for OI.
One hard problem I've run into is sysidtool: We have a changeset in
illumos-omnios below which basically severs the dependency on rpcbind with
sysidtool:net. For OmniOS, this is no big deal. It doesn't appear to be a
big deal for SmartOS as well. It does appear to be a problem for OI, for
the reasons the removed comments state (preventing a dependency cycle with
the new sys id).
I've made several WIP changes to illumos-gate to allow it to be built on
both platforms. So far, so good, and I've reduced a lot of conflicts. I'd
like to know if the below changeset from OmniOS is safe to upstream. The
others I have, I believe, will be non-controversial, but this one may be.
Thanks,
Dan
===============
diff --git a/usr/src/cmd/rpcbind/bind.xml b/usr/src/cmd/rpcbind/bind.xml
index 6efc234..218593c 100644
--- a/usr/src/cmd/rpcbind/bind.xml
+++ b/usr/src/cmd/rpcbind/bind.xml
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
+ Copyright 2012 OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Service manifest for rpcbind
@@ -63,15 +64,6 @@
value='svc:/system/identity:node' />
</dependency>
- <dependency
- name='sysidtool'
- grouping='require_all'
- restart_on='none'
- type='service'>
- <service_fmri
- value='svc:/system/sysidtool:net' />
- </dependency>
-
<!--
rpcbind(1M) depends on multicast routes installed by the
routing-setup service, and should be started after any IPsec
diff --git a/usr/src/cmd/svc/milestone/single-user.xml
b/usr/src/cmd/svc/milesto
index cbb93fd..706cc20 100644
--- a/usr/src/cmd/svc/milestone/single-user.xml
+++ b/usr/src/cmd/svc/milestone/single-user.xml
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
<!--
Copyright 2005 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
+ Copyright 2012 OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
CDDL HEADER START
@@ -43,32 +44,6 @@
<single_instance />
- <!--
- Single-user's dependency on sysidtool is obsolete, but instead of
- removing it from this manifest, retain it here with its delete
- attribute set to true. This is to try and prevent a dependency
- cycle with the new sysidtool which declares a dependency on
- single-user. This will force the deletion of single-user's
- sysidtool dependency as soon as this manifest is imported
- (instead of waiting for upgrade to delete it).
-
- Note that this does not guarantee the prevention of a dependency
- cycle (if the new sysidtool manifest is imported before
- single-user's) - if this does occur, the code in upgrade will
- catch it - it deletes single-user's dependency and "svcadm
- clear"s sysidtool.
- -->
-
- <dependency
- name='sysidtool'
- grouping='require_all'
- restart_on='none'
- type='service'
- delete='true'>
- <service_fmri value='svc:/system/sysidtool:net' />
- <service_fmri value='svc:/system/sysidtool:system' />
- </dependency>
-
<dependency
name='nodename'
grouping='require_all'
-------------------------------------------
illumos-developer
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182179/=now
https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182179/21239177-3604570e
https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
illumos-developer
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182179/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182179/21175072-86d49504
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175072&id_secret=21175072-abdf7b7e
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Dan McDonald via illumos-developer
2014-10-13 16:39:01 UTC
Permalink
That dependency, though, shouldn't require a packaging dependency. So
it doesn't tell you what the package dependency is trying to express.
My only guess is -- still -- a means to ensure that zones get
configured. It's just a guess though.
That *sounds* right. When we create new zones in OmniOS, we don't have an "installation at boot" step like an OI zone does, IIRC.

Dan



-------------------------------------------
illumos-developer
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182179/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182179/21175072-86d49504
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175072&id_secret=21175072-abdf7b7e
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Alexander Pyhalov via illumos-developer
2014-10-14 04:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan McDonald via illumos-developer
I've been hammering on a problem: How to get illumos-gate to build on
OI *and* OmniOS without introducing regressions on illumos-gate for
OI.
One hard problem I've run into is sysidtool: We have a changeset in
illumos-omnios below which basically severs the dependency on rpcbind
with sysidtool:net. For OmniOS, this is no big deal. It doesn't
appear to be a big deal for SmartOS as well. It does appear to be a
problem for OI, for the reasons the removed comments state (preventing
a dependency cycle with the new sys id).
I've made several WIP changes to illumos-gate to allow it to be built
on both platforms. So far, so good, and I've reduced a lot of
conflicts. I'd like to know if the below changeset from OmniOS is
safe to upstream. The others I have, I believe, will be
non-controversial, but this one may be.
Thanks,
Hello. I'm trying to understand, why it is here and what this change can
affect.
Do I understand the current state correctly? Some time ago single-user
depended on sysidtool.
Now it's not true, but now sysidtool depends on single-user. And to
facilitiate
updating old systems this deleted dependency was introduced. But even
7-years old SXCE install
has the same dependencies. What can this change affect? If even it is
not affected, then what is?
Do you really care about 10 years old Solaris systems updated to illumos
or I just don't
understand something?
---
System Administrator of Southern Federal University Computer Center




-------------------------------------------
illumos-developer
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182179/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182179/21175072-86d49504
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175072&id_secret=21175072-abdf7b7e
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Dan McDonald via illumos-developer
2014-10-14 04:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Do you really care about 10 years old Solaris systems updated to illumos or I just don't
understand something?
*I* don't really care, and I do want to remove it. I'm asking in case I'm missing some subtlety that isn't obvious.

It's been out of OmniOS since 2012. I want to upstream this change as part of an effort to allow OmniOS to build stock illumos-gate, even it it doesn't quite package it right.

Dan




-------------------------------------------
illumos-developer
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182179/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182179/21175072-86d49504
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175072&id_secret=21175072-abdf7b7e
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Alexander Pyhalov via illumos-developer
2014-10-14 05:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan McDonald via illumos-developer
Do you really care about 10 years old Solaris systems updated to illumos or I just don't
understand something?
*I* don't really care, and I do want to remove it. I'm asking in case
I'm missing some subtlety that isn't obvious.
I can't comment on removing dependency of rpcbind on sysidtool, don't
know how does it use it.
But as for deleting "deleted" dependency, if its only posible
implications are limited to inability to update some really ancient
systems to illumos,
I think it doesn't need worrying about. They can't be safely updated in
any case.


---
System Administrator of Southern Federal University Computer Center




-------------------------------------------
illumos-developer
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182179/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182179/21175072-86d49504
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175072&id_secret=21175072-abdf7b7e
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Garrett D'Amore via illumos-developer
2014-10-14 15:00:21 UTC
Permalink
I have reached the point that I'm firmly of the opinion that we've worried
far too greatly about updating/upgrading systems from OpenSolaris (or even
Solaris!) to illumos. I don't think anyone is doing this anymore, and I
think we carry an inordinate amount of baggage in a fool's errand of an
attempt to support it.

I doubt it actually works anymore, at any rate.

illumos-core stopped worrying very much about this -- I've made changes
that are going to cause packages a little bit of grief, although hopefully
not too much, if they adopt it. (Ejecting things out of the consolidation
has this effect, likewise bringing things in and moving them around.
Updating is a PITA requiring manual uninstall of some packages and
reinstall later. If I had a full installation ala OmniOS or OI, then
breaking the packaging dependencies expressed during onu wouldn't be such a
big deal.)


On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Alexander Pyhalov via illumos-developer <
Post by Dan McDonald via illumos-developer
Post by Alexander Pyhalov via illumos-developer
Do you really care about 10 years old Solaris systems updated to illumos
or I just don't
understand something?
*I* don't really care, and I do want to remove it. I'm asking in case
I'm missing some subtlety that isn't obvious.
I can't comment on removing dependency of rpcbind on sysidtool, don't know
how does it use it.
But as for deleting "deleted" dependency, if its only posible implications
are limited to inability to update some really ancient systems to illumos,
I think it doesn't need worrying about. They can't be safely updated in
any case.
---
System Administrator of Southern Federal University Computer Center
-------------------------------------------
illumos-developer
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182179/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182179/
21239177-3604570e
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/
member/?&
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
illumos-developer
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182179/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182179/21175072-86d49504
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175072&id_secret=21175072-abdf7b7e
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Josef 'Jeff' Sipek via illumos-developer
2014-10-14 15:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett D'Amore via illumos-developer
I have reached the point that I'm firmly of the opinion that we've worried
far too greatly about updating/upgrading systems from OpenSolaris (or even
Solaris!) to illumos. I don't think anyone is doing this anymore, and I
think we carry an inordinate amount of baggage in a fool's errand of an
attempt to support it.
I doubt it actually works anymore, at any rate.
FWIW, people could always try to do an intermediate upgrade to an (old) OI
system. IOW, osol -> OI before these cleanup changes -> OI after.

It sounds like upgrade doesn't really work anyway, but if there are people
that want to try to upgrade, that seems like a reasonable path instead of
carrying this baggage around forever.

Jeff.
--
I already backed up the [server] once, I can do it again.
- a sysadmin threatening to do more frequent backups


-------------------------------------------
illumos-developer
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182179/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182179/21175072-86d49504
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175072&id_secret=21175072-abdf7b7e
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Dan McDonald via illumos-developer
2014-10-14 15:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Thank you everyone for your answers.

I'm on 10 changes right now (which could be collapsed into 9) that push the build of illumos-gate to be workable on both OI w/o regressions AND on OmniOS. This may also translate well to other platforms as well, depending.

Dan



-------------------------------------------
illumos-developer
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182179/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182179/21175072-86d49504
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175072&id_secret=21175072-abdf7b7e
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Loading...