[Freeipa-devel] Update: Re: Fedora 20 Release

[Mark Reynolds]

On 12/17/2013 11:35 AM, 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)
>>    https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47624 (regression)
> Fixed.
>>
>> Replication:
>>    https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47632 (?)
>
> Cannot reproduce.  Closed as WORKSFORME.
>
>>
>> Stability:
>>    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041732
> Fixed.
>> https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47629 (we are not sure if the 
>> syncrepl really plays some role or not)
>
> We are still trying to determine the cause, and if this is related to 
> the use of syncrepl.  If it turns out to be related to syncrepl, I 
> would like to release 1.3.2.9 in F20, and just disable the use of 
> syncrepl in 389 clients.
>
> Is everyone ok with this?
>
Rich I found a crash in 1.3.2 and 1.3.1.  This should go into 1.3.2.9(or 
a 1.3.2.10).
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.?)
>>
>

-- 
Mark Reynolds
389 Development Team
Red Hat, Inc
mreynolds at redhat.com