Jan Damborsky wrote: > Hi Evan, > > > Evan Layton wrote: >> Hi Folks, >> >> We are in need of your input on requirements for the version >> compatibility work. >> >> Some draft examples of requirements that we're looking at are: >> * Define the versions of the installations we will support >> o 1 to 1 match for live CD and pkg based installs. > > Just to clarify, by LiveCD installs, you mean using cpio transfer > mechanism ? > > As far as pkg based installs are concerned, how 1:1 match requirement > maps > to the existing IPS versioning scheme ? Will it be always assured that > this > information can be derived from AI manifest ?
With what we currently have in the manifest, it is impossible to assure this by inspecting the manifest. We would need to *require* that the specific build be in given in the manifest, not just the repo and branch. > How 1:1 match requirement will affect scalability with respect to > number of AI images > administrator will have to maintain ? Not sure what you're asking here. Are you thinking of a particular implementation? In general, I don't think the CVERS problem is going to be solved on the server. To keep the client modular, its got to be able to validate whatever its given at run time anyway. > > >> o possible mismatch for image based installs such as >> replicated images. >> * Define the behavior when a mismatch is detected >> o which do we handle and which do we flag as an error. > > When IPS transfer mechanism is used for the installation, I am > thinking if > there might be possibility to get rid of this problem or move it to > the more > explored area by using similar IPS mechanism we have on running system > when > we do the updates. > > For now IPS fresh install is one step process - just 'pkg install' > packages > listed in AI manifest of the version specified in AI manifest. > > The another approach might be to do the fresh install as two step > process: > > [1] install the system with the same version as booted AI image and do > the all > post install config stuff. > [2] If version specified in AI manifest is newer, use 'pkg image-update' > mechanism to update the installed bits to the required version. > > Not sure, if this approach is viable, but it seems that the > incompatibility > problem would move to the area being used and explored. > > There are issues we would need to check with IPS team, but before > starting > that more detailed discussion, I am wondering, if it is even worth to > consider that approach. It doesn't seem to solve the problem for when an older build is wanted. i.e. you can't image-update backwards. In general, using IPS's pkg ideology to ensure the contents of the IMAGE is intact is a good idea. So moving any and all, if possible, of our ICTs into pkg contents is what we are driving towards. But their are structural pieces outside of the IMAGE -- disk, zpool, grub, etc -- that pkg doesn't touch and we still need to consider those in the CVERS problem. thanks, -ethan
