[Debian] Re: unblock request for vzctl

Ola Lundqvist ola at inguza.com
Mon Sep 13 16:10:51 EDT 2010


Hi Julien

Thanks for checking the package.

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:24:01PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 22:22:09 +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> 
> > vzctl (3.0.24-5) unstable; urgency=medium
> > 
> --- vzctl-3.0.24/debian/vzctl.preinst
> +++ vzctl-3.0.24/debian/vzctl.preinst
> @@ -19,12 +19,22 @@
>      install)
>      ;;
>      upgrade)
> +        # Upgrade path, vz cron file no longer needed as vzeventd exist
> +       # instead.
> +       # From lenny
> +        if [ -e /etc/cron.d/vz ] ; then
> +           rm -f /etc/cron.d/vz
> +       fi
> +       # From etch
> +       if [ -e /etc/vz/cron/vz ] ; then
> +           rm -f /etc/vz/cron/vz
> +       fi
>          # Upgrade path for (etch version) cron files.
>          if [ -e /etc/cron.d/vpsnetclean ] ; then
> -           mv /etc/cron.d/vpsnetclean /etc/cron.d/vpsnetclean,disabled
> +           rm -f /etc/cron.d/vpsnetclean
>         fi
>          if [ -e /etc/cron.d/vpsreboot ] ; then
> -           mv /etc/cron.d/vpsreboot /etc/cron.d/vpsreboot,disabled
> +           rm -f /etc/cron.d/vpsreboot
>         fi
>      ;;
>  
> 
> Removing possibly modified configuration files is a severe policy
> violation.

Yes you are right. I thought the package should be cleaned up as this
functionality really do not have any meaning anymore.
But you are right, I overlooked how this should be performed. Will disable
them instead and remove in purge.

Uploaded fixed version now.

vzctl (3.0.24-6) unstable; urgency=low

  * Configuration files are not allowed to be removed on upgrade. Solved.

 -- Ola Lundqvist <opal at debian.org>  Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:57:44 +0200

> diff -u vzctl-3.0.24/debian/vzctl.postinst vzctl-3.0.24/debian/vzctl.postinst
> --- vzctl-3.0.24/debian/vzctl.postinst
> +++ vzctl-3.0.24/debian/vzctl.postinst
> @@ -52,6 +41,25 @@
>                     rm $NAMECFG
>                 fi
>             done
> +        fi
> +       # This is not an upgrade, check if we should start it as well.
> +       if [ -d /proc/vz ] ; then
> +           if [ -x /usr/sbin/invoke-rc.d ] ; then
> +               invoke-rc.d vz start || true
> +           else
> +               /etc/init.d/vz start || true
> +           fi
> +       else
> +           echo "The kernel do not support openvz, do not start vz."
> +       fi
> +       if [ -e /sys/module/vzevent/parameters/reboot_event ] ; then
> +           if [ -x /usr/sbin/invoke-rc.d ] ; then
> +               invoke-rc.d vzeventd start || true
> +           else
> +               /etc/init.d/vzeventd start || true
> +           fi
> +       else
> +           echo "The kernel do not support vzevent, do not start vzeventd."
>         fi
>      ;;
>  
> 
> Why are you ignoring errors from the init script?

Good question. It is a practice of mine to make sure that upgrade
do not fail just because of some issue during the startup. Especially
important as this one checks for kernel modules which may be provided
by custom kernels. Do you have a problem with that?

> It looks like you've done the autotools run with older versions
> (automake 1.10 instead of 1.11)?  That makes the diff quite a bit larger
> than it would otherwise be.

Yes. I run stable here, except for some few backported tools. So, yes
it is larger than necessary.

> Why does src/vzctl-actions.c now ignore malloc() failure?

It was part of 'Revert "Check for memory granted by get_dist_name"'.
See
http://git.openvz.org/?p=vzctl;a=commit;h=9588ecbb8c8e3b628a1187e88d664662b83c97d5
There were issues with the change in 3.0.24.

> The upstart fix doesn't seem necessary, although probably harmless..

I'm not sure what upstart fix you are referring to.

If you are referring to the change in vzeventd, then yes it should be harmless.
Not strictly necessary but could be useful
for people. I thought it would be useful to add as this was the first
time this script was introduced anyway.

If you are referring to the solution for #411902, I solved that one as
vzeventd should be started on install. I made sure vz was also
started at the same time.

Or did you refer to something else?

Best regards,

// Ola

> Cheers,
> Julien



-- 
 --- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ----
/  ola at inguza.com                    Annebergsslingan 37        \
|  opal at debian.org                   654 65 KARLSTAD            |
|  http://inguza.com/                Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
\  gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9  /
 ---------------------------------------------------------------


More information about the Debian mailing list