Bug#663051: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] debian: Use a different way to avoid failing install without kernel module.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 03:49:13PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 07:16:04AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 02:19:31PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:30:24AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:49:08PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: This looks fine to me, I don't know much about debian though. If you feel confident in it I'm fine with merging it. Otherwise someone else should look at it. I am happy with this change. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au Thank you. I pushed this to master. Simon, I haven't backported this or the previous series of Debian changes to 1.4. Do you want me to do that? How far away do you think 1.5 is? Personally, I think that if its more than a few weeks away then I think that fixing up the Debian packaging in 1.4 would be worthwhile. I'll do the backport. I backported to 1.[456]. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#663051: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] debian: Use a different way to avoid failing install without kernel module.
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 01:16:53PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 03/17/2012 06:57 AM, Simon Horman wrote: Understood, in that case I agree that backporting makes sense. I agree that backporting fixes makes sense. I'd like also to highlight that you'd be backporting a forwarded-port... :) True. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#663051: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] debian: Use a different way to avoid failing install without kernel module.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:16:32AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 03:49:13PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 07:16:04AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 02:19:31PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:30:24AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:49:08PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: This looks fine to me, I don't know much about debian though. If you feel confident in it I'm fine with merging it. Otherwise someone else should look at it. I am happy with this change. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au Thank you. I pushed this to master. Simon, I haven't backported this or the previous series of Debian changes to 1.4. Do you want me to do that? How far away do you think 1.5 is? Personally, I think that if its more than a few weeks away then I think that fixing up the Debian packaging in 1.4 would be worthwhile. I'll do the backport. I backported to 1.[456]. Hi Ben, do you think there will be a point release of 1.4 in the near future? If not, I'll go ahead and prepare a fresh upload ASAP. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#663051: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] debian: Use a different way to avoid failing install without kernel module.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 07:11:33AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:16:32AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 03:49:13PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 07:16:04AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 02:19:31PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:30:24AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:49:08PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: This looks fine to me, I don't know much about debian though. If you feel confident in it I'm fine with merging it. Otherwise someone else should look at it. I am happy with this change. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au Thank you. I pushed this to master. Simon, I haven't backported this or the previous series of Debian changes to 1.4. Do you want me to do that? How far away do you think 1.5 is? Personally, I think that if its more than a few weeks away then I think that fixing up the Debian packaging in 1.4 would be worthwhile. I'll do the backport. I backported to 1.[456]. do you think there will be a point release of 1.4 in the near future? If not, I'll go ahead and prepare a fresh upload ASAP. Justin, can we put out a 1.4.1 release soon? branch-1.4 has about 50 commits since 1.4.0. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#663051: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] debian: Use a different way to avoid failing install without kernel module.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:30:24AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:49:08PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: This looks fine to me, I don't know much about debian though. If you feel confident in it I'm fine with merging it. Otherwise someone else should look at it. I am happy with this change. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au Thank you. I pushed this to master. Simon, I haven't backported this or the previous series of Debian changes to 1.4. Do you want me to do that? Thanks, Ben. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#663051: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] debian: Use a different way to avoid failing install without kernel module.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 02:19:31PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:30:24AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:49:08PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: This looks fine to me, I don't know much about debian though. If you feel confident in it I'm fine with merging it. Otherwise someone else should look at it. I am happy with this change. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au Thank you. I pushed this to master. Simon, I haven't backported this or the previous series of Debian changes to 1.4. Do you want me to do that? How far away do you think 1.5 is? Personally, I think that if its more than a few weeks away then I think that fixing up the Debian packaging in 1.4 would be worthwhile. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#663051: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] debian: Use a different way to avoid failing install without kernel module.
On Mar 16, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Simon Horman wrote: How far away do you think 1.5 is? I think it's reasonable to expect that it will be released in the next few weeks. --Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#663051: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] debian: Use a different way to avoid failing install without kernel module.
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 07:16:04AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 02:19:31PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:30:24AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:49:08PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: This looks fine to me, I don't know much about debian though. If you feel confident in it I'm fine with merging it. Otherwise someone else should look at it. I am happy with this change. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au Thank you. I pushed this to master. Simon, I haven't backported this or the previous series of Debian changes to 1.4. Do you want me to do that? How far away do you think 1.5 is? Personally, I think that if its more than a few weeks away then I think that fixing up the Debian packaging in 1.4 would be worthwhile. I'll do the backport. I'm not sure whether Debian should upgrade to 1.5 when it comes out anyway. OVS 1.4 is a branch that we are planning to support for an extended period of time. If wheezy freezes in June, then 1.4 will be the last such release before the freeze. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#663051: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] debian: Use a different way to avoid failing install without kernel module.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 03:49:13PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 07:16:04AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 02:19:31PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:30:24AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:49:08PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: This looks fine to me, I don't know much about debian though. If you feel confident in it I'm fine with merging it. Otherwise someone else should look at it. I am happy with this change. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au Thank you. I pushed this to master. Simon, I haven't backported this or the previous series of Debian changes to 1.4. Do you want me to do that? How far away do you think 1.5 is? Personally, I think that if its more than a few weeks away then I think that fixing up the Debian packaging in 1.4 would be worthwhile. I'll do the backport. I'm not sure whether Debian should upgrade to 1.5 when it comes out anyway. OVS 1.4 is a branch that we are planning to support for an extended period of time. If wheezy freezes in June, then 1.4 will be the last such release before the freeze. Understood, in that case I agree that backporting makes sense. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#663051: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] debian: Use a different way to avoid failing install without kernel module.
On 03/17/2012 06:57 AM, Simon Horman wrote: Understood, in that case I agree that backporting makes sense. I agree that backporting fixes makes sense. I'd like also to highlight that you'd be backporting a forwarded-port... :) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#663051: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] debian: Use a different way to avoid failing install without kernel module.
This looks fine to me, I don't know much about debian though. If you
feel confident in it I'm fine with merging it. Otherwise someone else
should look at it.
Ethan
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:27, Ben Pfaff b...@nicira.com wrote:
The dh_installinit --error-handler option makes a lot of sense, but after
playing with it for a while I could not figure out a nice way to use it
only for openvswitch-switch without either duplicating the dh_installinit
fragments in postinst and prerm (the actual bug that was reported) or
omitting them for some package.
Also, we forgot to write the error handler function for the prerm.
This commit switches to a different way to avoid failing the install when
the kernel module is not available, without using --error-handler.
CC: 663...@bugs.debian.org
Reported-by: Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org
Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff b...@nicira.com
---
debian/openvswitch-switch.init | 7 +++
debian/openvswitch-switch.postinst | 18 ++
debian/rules | 3 +--
3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/debian/openvswitch-switch.init b/debian/openvswitch-switch.init
index 98863e3..aebf21e 100755
--- a/debian/openvswitch-switch.init
+++ b/debian/openvswitch-switch.init
@@ -58,6 +58,13 @@ start () {
echo For instructions, read
fi
echo /usr/share/doc/openvswitch-datapath-source/README.Debian
+
+ if test X$OVS_MISSING_KMOD_OK = Xyes; then
+ # We're being invoked by the package postinst. Do not
+ # fail package installation just because the kernel module
+ # is not available.
+ exit 0
+ fi
fi
set ovs_ctl ${1-start} --system-id=random
if test X$FORCE_COREFILES != X; then
diff --git a/debian/openvswitch-switch.postinst
b/debian/openvswitch-switch.postinst
index c50853a..7b9d7bc 100755
--- a/debian/openvswitch-switch.postinst
+++ b/debian/openvswitch-switch.postinst
@@ -44,25 +44,11 @@ case $1 in
;;
esac
-HAVE_KMOD=no
-
-init_script_error () {
- if test X$HAVE_KMOD = Xno; then
- exit 0
- fi
- exit 1
-}
-
# Do not fail package installation just because the kernel module
# is not available.
-if test -x /etc/init.d/openvswitch-switch; then
- if invoke-rc.d openvswitch-switch load-kmod; then
- HAVE_KMOD=yes
- fi
-fi
+OVS_MISSING_KMOD_OK=yes
+export OVS_MISSING_KMOD_OK
#DEBHELPER#
exit 0
-
-
diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
index 4160025..24c9850 100755
--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
@@ -134,8 +134,7 @@ binary-common:
dh_installexamples
dh_installdebconf
dh_installlogrotate
- dh_installinit -R -Nopenvswitch-switch
- dh_installinit -R -popenvswitch-switch
--error-handler=init_script_error
+ dh_installinit -R
dh_installcron
dh_installman --language=C
dh_link
--
1.7.2.5
___
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#663051: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] debian: Use a different way to avoid failing install without kernel module.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:49:08PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
This looks fine to me, I don't know much about debian though. If you
feel confident in it I'm fine with merging it. Otherwise someone else
should look at it.
I am happy with this change.
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au
Ethan
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:27, Ben Pfaff b...@nicira.com wrote:
The dh_installinit --error-handler option makes a lot of sense, but after
playing with it for a while I could not figure out a nice way to use it
only for openvswitch-switch without either duplicating the dh_installinit
fragments in postinst and prerm (the actual bug that was reported) or
omitting them for some package.
Also, we forgot to write the error handler function for the prerm.
This commit switches to a different way to avoid failing the install when
the kernel module is not available, without using --error-handler.
CC: 663...@bugs.debian.org
Reported-by: Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org
Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff b...@nicira.com
---
debian/openvswitch-switch.init | 7 +++
debian/openvswitch-switch.postinst | 18 ++
debian/rules | 3 +--
3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/debian/openvswitch-switch.init b/debian/openvswitch-switch.init
index 98863e3..aebf21e 100755
--- a/debian/openvswitch-switch.init
+++ b/debian/openvswitch-switch.init
@@ -58,6 +58,13 @@ start () {
echo For instructions, read
fi
echo /usr/share/doc/openvswitch-datapath-source/README.Debian
+
+ if test X$OVS_MISSING_KMOD_OK = Xyes; then
+ # We're being invoked by the package postinst. Do not
+ # fail package installation just because the kernel module
+ # is not available.
+ exit 0
+ fi
fi
set ovs_ctl ${1-start} --system-id=random
if test X$FORCE_COREFILES != X; then
diff --git a/debian/openvswitch-switch.postinst
b/debian/openvswitch-switch.postinst
index c50853a..7b9d7bc 100755
--- a/debian/openvswitch-switch.postinst
+++ b/debian/openvswitch-switch.postinst
@@ -44,25 +44,11 @@ case $1 in
;;
esac
-HAVE_KMOD=no
-
-init_script_error () {
- if test X$HAVE_KMOD = Xno; then
- exit 0
- fi
- exit 1
-}
-
# Do not fail package installation just because the kernel module
# is not available.
-if test -x /etc/init.d/openvswitch-switch; then
- if invoke-rc.d openvswitch-switch load-kmod; then
- HAVE_KMOD=yes
- fi
-fi
+OVS_MISSING_KMOD_OK=yes
+export OVS_MISSING_KMOD_OK
#DEBHELPER#
exit 0
-
-
diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
index 4160025..24c9850 100755
--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
@@ -134,8 +134,7 @@ binary-common:
dh_installexamples
dh_installdebconf
dh_installlogrotate
- dh_installinit -R -Nopenvswitch-switch
- dh_installinit -R -popenvswitch-switch
--error-handler=init_script_error
+ dh_installinit -R
dh_installcron
dh_installman --language=C
dh_link
--
1.7.2.5
___
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
___
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
