Yes we can move it. Does 11:30am PST work ok?

Sent from my iPhone

On May 13, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Jack Schwartz <Jack.A.Schwartz at Sun.COM>  
wrote:

> Hi Evan.
>
> I may not be able to make that time as I have an appointment  
> beforehand.  Is it possible to change to 11 AM PT or later please?
>
>   Thanks,
>   Jack
>
> On 05/13/09 09:04, Evan Layton wrote:
>> I would like to have a meeting on Thursday 5/14 at 10am PT to  
>> discuss the Version Compatibility work. Please let me know as soon  
>> as possible if this time doesn't work so we can find a better time  
>> for everyone.
>>
>> The agenda will cover the following:
>>    - go over Ethan's installer compatibility write-up. (While this
>>      only covers the current package-based installs it is a good
>>      place to start)
>>        - please read over this write-up and be ready to discuss.
>>    - What does compatibility mean
>>    - what needs to change in the current problem statement.
>>    - go over other questions:
>>        1) How do we determine which version we are running the
>>           install on vs which version we're installing.
>>        2) How do we determine what makes the OS versions compatible?
>>        3) How do we keep track of which OS version is compatible
>>           with installing which OS versions?
>>        4) Do we know what the use cases are (see bug 7838 for some of
>>           this but more related to manifests).
>>        5) What are the incompatibilities?
>>        6) How do we handle these incompatibilities? (errors,  
>> warnings,
>>           take corrective actions if possible...)
>>    - What overlaps do we think we may have with the XML parsing work.
>>      This refers to forward and backward compatibility of manifests.
>>    - open discussion
>>
>> Teleconf number:
>>    Internal extension x44405
>>    US-based:      866-545-5220
>>    International: 213-787-0527
>>    PC: 6343344#
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -evan
>>
>> ====================================================================
>> Proposal for installer compatibility with pkg-based installed bits.
>> (Fom March 23rd)
>>
>> As discussed in the meeting today, bug 7837 has been filed to
>> address handling this issue long term.
>>
>> Bug 7838 is filed to log the installer and installed system's
>> build numbers in the install_log. This one will be fixed for
>> this release.
>>
>> AI docs will also be updated to note this.
>>
>>
>> thanks,
>> -ethan
>>
>>
>> Ethan Quach wrote:
>> >
>> > thoughts welcomed on this ...
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > -ethan
>> >
>> >
>> > Problem/Background
>> > ----------------------------------
>> > With pkg-based installs, we've run into some incompatibility
>> > problems as we've released later development builds that
>> > aren't compatible with older installers, as seen in a few posts
>> > from early triers of AI. This will be an on-going issue as we
>> > develop new features into the installer, and we currently don't
>> > handle this as nicely or intelligently as we could.
>> >
>> >
>> > Proposed Solutions
>> > -------------------------------
>> > [0*] Download the installer from pkg branch requested to be
>> > installed. This solution involves extreme refactoring of the
>> > installer architecture to dummy-down the install media, and
>> > to store the real guts of the installer elsewhere. This solution
>> > is not being considered for this proposal, but isn't precluded
>> > from any future rework.
>> >
>> >
>> > [1] A simple, conservative, solution to this problem would be to
>> > restrict that install media only be able to support pkg-based
>> > installs for packages of the same build as was used to build the
>> > install media.
>> >
>> > Since in most cases, a random development build N install
>> > image could potentially, and usually likely, be able to install
>> > pkg-based bits of build N+1 for example, the enforcement could
>> > be lightweight --perhaps just a warning message on the console
>> > and/or log. E.g.
>> >
>> > WARNING: The build of the packages being installed, build X,
>> > is not supported by this installer which was built using build Y.
>> > Install will proceed, however the installed system is not
>> > guaranteed to be installed properly.
>> >
>> >
>> > [2] Embed variability into the process such that the install image
>> > is able to determine if the pkg branch being requested to be
>> > installed is supported by it. For example, use an install image
>> > built from build N to do a pkg-based install of build N+2. The
>> > installer knows its able to support this scenario and allows the
>> > install to complete with no warnings. This provides more support
>> > flexibility to the user, but requires a little more upfront work  
>> from
>> > development.
>> >
>> >
>> > Initial Impl. Details for [2]
>> > ------------------------------------------
>> > The install image built with build X is obviously built before  
>> future
>> > builds, build X+1, build X+2, ... etc, so it is impossible to  
>> directly
>> > embed into the installer what builds it can support. So this
>> > compatibility knowledge must be placed with the packaged install
>> > bits themselves. So the proposal here is to create a new package,
>> > SUNWinstall_compat, which for each build will define which
>> > builds of the installer is able to support installing that build.  
>> The
>> > new package would contain a simple text file with
>> >
>> > MIN_INSTALL_COMPAT_BUILD=
>> > MAX_INSTALL_COMPAT_BUILD=
>> >
>> >
>> > 2.1 Installer changes
>> > The installer will be enhanced to download the requested build's
>> > SUNWinstall_compat package first, then check that the build it
>> > was built with falls within the MIN and MAX value.
>> >
>> > if (requested build has no SUNWinstall_compat package)
>> > WARNING: no SUNWinstall_compat pkg found. Install will
>> > proceed, but ...
>> >
>> > else if (install image build is out of range of MIN and MAX)
>> > WARNING: this install image is not supported to install
>> > build X. Install will proceed, but ....
>> >
>> >
>> > 2.2 SUNWinstall_compat package
>> > The new SUNWinstall_compat package will deliver a text file
>> > with the MIN and MAX build numbers defining which builds of
>> > the install image are supported to install that build of the
>> > packages. This package is not installed on the installed machine.
>> >
>> > MIN_INSTALL_COMPAT_BUILD=[integer: 0,infinity]
>> > MIX_INSTALL_COMPAT_BUILD=[integer: 0,infinity]
>> >
>> > The MIN_INSTALL_COMPAT_BUILD value needs to be updated
>> > only when known Flag Days occur for the Installer installing
>> > pkg-based bits. For example, if in build 115, we need to make
>> > changes in ICT to support pkg-based installing of build 115, then
>> > we update the MIN_INSTALL_COMPAT_BUILD value in build 115
>> > to be 115. Any previous build installer will now emit a WARNING
>> > when they pkg-base install bld 115. If we happen to forget to
>> > update this file for build 115, its easily back-publishable since  
>> its
>> > just a text file.
>> >
>> > The MAX_INSTALL_COMPAT_BUILD value should always be left
>> > as infinity for new builds. This value is useful only to be
>> > backpublished when we know of changes to the installer that
>> > prevent it from being able to install some older build.
>> > For example, if in build 120, we make changes to the installer
>> > such that it can no longer pkg-base install build 111 on back,
>> > then we backpublish the SUNWinstall_compat package for builds
>> > 111 on back to have a MAX value of 119 (or back until we hit some
>> > build that already has a value for MAX)
>> >
>> >
>> > Issues
>> > ----------
>> > [2] assumes one shared base of installer tools wrt pkg-based
>> > installs. i.e. a LiveCD pkg-based installer and the AI pkg-based
>> > installer wouldn't have different installer compatibility  
>> boundaries.
>> > Otherwise separate sets of MIN and MAX values would have to
>> > be defined for each pkg-based installer.
>>
>

Reply via email to