Re: [leaf-devel] pty allocation failure (solved)
Hi KP Am 10.10.2015 um 20:10 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer: HI Erich; Am Samstag, 10. Oktober 2015, 13:08:17 schrieb Erich Titl: Hi KP Am 10.10.2015 um 03:20 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer: Hi Erich; ... This is a good point, but it may break upgrade as right now there is no user interaction, whereas apkg -u always has user interaction and this IMHO would be a major drawback. Why would this be a major drawback? Because of the necessity of user interaction. It is my understanding that the upgrade script downloads the files to your mountpoint/local storage. But that way you'll run into problems like you have seen with fstab. Correct and it _must_ be our goal that such changes do _never_ happen. There should be a way to preserve user settings without touching the contents of system files. Maybe we should just save the differrences to the original files and apply them to the freshly loaded files at system start. Maybe you can enhance upgrade to also upgrade the running system with apkg -u, as second step, you'll get all the benefits of the upgrade logic of apkg. Yes this requires user action, but without you either miss new config settings or you lose your changes to the config files. Possibly, if apkg really detects all incongruities. The last step would be to svae the changes to configdb. Of course It will be easy to implement this although I do not like it. I will certainly look into a way to preserve user changes, but that will be major work and take some time. cheers ET smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] pty allocation failure (solved)
HI Erich; Am Samstag, 10. Oktober 2015, 13:08:17 schrieb Erich Titl: > Hi KP > > Am 10.10.2015 um 03:20 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer: > > Hi Erich; > > ... > > > This does not happen, if one adds a new etc.lrp with "apkg -u", where > > changes between confg files are noticed to the user, who can then decide > > to Keep the old file, to Replace it with the new version, to Show > > differences or to Edit a merge file. > > > > Can your upgrade script handle this better (does it run apkg -u for > > Packages?), than the sole replacement of the Package file?? > > > > This would be a welcome improvement. > > This is a good point, but it may break upgrade as right now there is no > user interaction, whereas apkg -u always has user interaction and this > IMHO would be a major drawback. Why would this be a major drawback? It is my understanding that the upgrade script downloads the files to your mountpoint/local storage. But that way you'll run into problems like you have seen with fstab. Maybe you can enhance upgrade to also upgrade the running system with apkg -u, as second step, you'll get all the benefits of the upgrade logic of apkg. Yes this requires user action, but without you either miss new config settings or you lose your changes to the config files. The last step would be to svae the changes to configdb. As I said this would be a huge improvement compared to the current upgrade process. > I don't know if there is an option to apkg which makes it silent and > just use the new file, but that could probably be added. Nevertheless, > if apkg could overwrie the package then we still would have to save > configdb, but that is not so bad. Unfortunately, there could be a loss > of valuable information in configdb. > Maybe it would be enough to inform the user of the differences in > important config files. Also had I read the Release Notes I might have > had less guesswork :-( > > >> Had I upgraded the router previously to 5.x this would probably have > >> occurred earlier, it is a 4.x to 5.x issue. I suggest to document this > >> in some gotcha section of an upgrade guide. > > > > Yes; I'll try to take care of this tomorrow. > > Thank you, I am sure there will be more. kp -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] pty allocation failure (solved)
Hi KP Am 10.10.2015 um 03:20 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer: > Hi Erich; > ... > > This does not happen, if one adds a new etc.lrp with "apkg -u", where changes > between confg files are noticed to the user, who can then decide to Keep the > old file, to Replace it with the new version, to Show differences or to Edit > a > merge file. > > Can your upgrade script handle this better (does it run apkg -u for > Packages?), than the sole replacement of the Package file?? > > This would be a welcome improvement. This is a good point, but it may break upgrade as right now there is no user interaction, whereas apkg -u always has user interaction and this IMHO would be a major drawback. I don't know if there is an option to apkg which makes it silent and just use the new file, but that could probably be added. Nevertheless, if apkg could overwrie the package then we still would have to save configdb, but that is not so bad. Unfortunately, there could be a loss of valuable information in configdb. Maybe it would be enough to inform the user of the differences in important config files. Also had I read the Release Notes I might have had less guesswork :-( > >> Had I upgraded the router previously to 5.x this would probably have >> occurred earlier, it is a 4.x to 5.x issue. I suggest to document this >> in some gotcha section of an upgrade guide. > > Yes; I'll try to take care of this tomorrow. > Thank you, I am sure there will be more. cheers ET -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] pty allocation failure (solved)
Hi Erich; Am Mittwoch, 7. Oktober 2015, 17:05:09 schrieb Erich Titl: > Hi > > Bad Karma, but I found the reason myself :-( Sorry for late response, have been on holidays last week :) > Am 07.10.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Erich Titl: > > Hi KP > > > > you apparently had the same failure about 2 years ago. I could not find > > the solution in the archives though. > > > > debug1: Allocating pty. > > openpty: No space left on device > > session_pty_req: session 0 alloc failed > > My previous version was 4.1 and there was no entry in fstab for devpts. > I added stuff to /etc/fstab locally, actually completely legal and saved > the changes to configdb, thus the fstab was overwritten and lacked the > entries for the newly created mount points in 5.x. You are right, if you have saved previously changes in fstab to configdb.lrp and just *replace* etc.lrp, providing an updated fstab, your saved fstab will overwrite the new one - and consequently you'll be missing the changes. This does not happen, if one adds a new etc.lrp with "apkg -u", where changes between confg files are noticed to the user, who can then decide to Keep the old file, to Replace it with the new version, to Show differences or to Edit a merge file. Can your upgrade script handle this better (does it run apkg -u for Packages?), than the sole replacement of the Package file?? This would be a welcome improvement. > Had I upgraded the router previously to 5.x this would probably have > occurred earlier, it is a 4.x to 5.x issue. I suggest to document this > in some gotcha section of an upgrade guide. Yes; I'll try to take care of this tomorrow. thx for catching it kp -- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] pty allocation failure (solved)
Hi Bad Karma, but I found the reason myself :-( Am 07.10.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Erich Titl: > Hi KP > > you apparently had the same failure about 2 years ago. I could not find > the solution in the archives though. > > debug1: Allocating pty. > openpty: No space left on device > session_pty_req: session 0 alloc failed My previous version was 4.1 and there was no entry in fstab for devpts. I added stuff to /etc/fstab locally, actually completely legal and saved the changes to configdb, thus the fstab was overwritten and lacked the entries for the newly created mount points in 5.x. Had I upgraded the router previously to 5.x this would probably have occurred earlier, it is a 4.x to 5.x issue. I suggest to document this in some gotcha section of an upgrade guide. cheers ET -- Full-scale, agent-less Infrastructure Monitoring from a single dashboard Integrate with 40+ ManageEngine ITSM Solutions for complete visibility Physical-Virtual-Cloud Infrastructure monitoring from one console Real user monitoring with APM Insights and performance trend reports Learn More http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=247754911&iu=/4140 ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
