On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 13:24 +0200, Martin Kosek wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 10:05 PM, Ade Lee wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Dogtag 10 is being released on f18, and has a number of changes that
> > will affect IPA. In particular, the following changes will affect
> > current IPA code.
> > * The directory layout of the dogtag instance has changed. Instead of
> > using separate tomcat instances to host different subsystems, the
> > standard dogtag installation will allow one to install a CA. KRA, OCSP
> > and TKS within the same instance. There have been corresponding changes
> > in the directory layout, as well as the default instance name
> > (pki-tomcat instead of pki-ca), and startup daemon (pki-tomcatd, instead
> > of pki-cad, pki-krad etc.)
> > * The default instance will use only four ports (HTTPS, HTTP, AJP and
> > tomcat shutdown port) rather than the 6 previously used. The default
> > ports will be changed to the standard tomcat ports. As these ports are
> > local to the ipa server machine, this should not cause too much
> > disruption.
> > * There is a new single step installer written in python.
> > (pkispawn/destroy) vs. pkicreate/pkisilent/pkiremove.
> > * Dogtag 10 runs on tomcat7 - with a new corresponding version of
> > tomcatjss.
> > The attached patch integrates all the above changes in IPA installation
> > and maintenance code. Once the patch is applied, users will be able to:
> > 1. run ipa-server-install to completion on f18 with dogtag 10.
> > 2. install a new replica on f18 on dogtag 10.
> > 3. upgrade an f17 machine with an existing IPA instance to f18/ dogtag
> > 10 - and have that old-style dogtag instance continue to run correctly.
> > This will require the installation of the latest version of tomcatjss as
> > well as the installation of tomcat6. The old-style instance will
> > continue to use tomcat6.
> > 4. in addition, the new cert renewal code has been patched and should
> > continue to work.
> > What is not yet completed / supported:
> > 1. Installation with an external CA is not yet completed in the new
> > installer. We plan to complete this soon.
> > 2. There is some IPA upgrade code that has not yet been touched
> > (install/tools/ipa-upgradeconfig).
> > 3. A script needs to be written to allow admins to convert their
> > old-style dogtag instances to new style instances, as well as code to
> > periodically prompt admins to do this.
> > 4. Installation of old-style instances using pkicreate/pkisilent on
> > dogtag 10 will no longer be supported, and will be disabled soon.
> > 5. The pki-selinux policy has been updated to reflect these changes,
> > but is still in flux. In fact, it is our intention to place the dogtag
> > selinux policy in the base selinux policy for f18. In the meantime, it
> > may be necessary to run installs in permissive mode.
> > The dogtag 10 code will be released shortly into f18. Prior to that
> > though, we have placed the new dogtag 10 and tomcatjss code in a
> > developer repo that is located at
> > http://nkinder.fedorapeople.org/dogtag-devel/
> > Testing can be done on both f18 and f17 - although the target platform -
> > and the only platform for which official builds will be created is f18.
> > Thanks,
> > Ade
> Hi Ade,
> Thanks for the patch, I started with review and integration tests (currently
> running on Fedora 17 with Nathan's repo).
> Installation on single master was smooth, it worked just fine, even with
> enforced SELinux, without any error - kudos to you and the whole dogtag team.
> The resulting logs and the structure of your log directory seems improved. I
> believe that the brand new Python installers will make it easier to debug
> issues with dogtag installation when they come. When I tried our unit tests
> some simple cert operation, it worked fine as well.
> Now the bad news, or rather few issues and suggestions I found:
> 1) As we already discussed on IRC, tomcat 7 was not pulled automatically on
> Fedora 17 when I updated pki-ca, you somewhere miss a Requires.
We have a dogtag patch that is currently in review that will address
this. Once this is in, tomcatjss >=7.0.0 will be required for f17+,
rather than f18+
> 2) I had installed IPA with dogtag10 on master. However, CA installation on a
> replica (ipa-ca-install) with dogtag9 failed - is this expectable?
Yes. The current IPA patch is designed to work with dogtag 10 only,
which will be officially available on f18+. So if you update to dogtag
10, you must have this patch and visa versa. We probably need to add
the relevant requires to IPA to enforce this.
If you have an existing dogtag 9 instance, and you upgrade to the new
dogtag 10 and patched IPA, then that instance will continue to work.
But any new instances would be created using dogtag 10.
> 3) I had installed IPA with dogtag10 on master. Replica had dogtag10 as well
> and I got the following error:
> # ipa-ca-install /home/mkosek/replica-info-vm-114.idm.lab.bos.redhat.com.gpg
> Configuring certificate server: Estimated time 3 minutes 30 seconds
> [1/14]: creating certificate server user
> [2/14]: configuring certificate server instance
> Your system may be partly configured.
> Run /usr/sbin/ipa-server-install --uninstall to clean up.
> Unexpected error - see /var/log/ipareplica-ca-install.log for details:
> IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory:
> Root cause:
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ipaserver/install/cainstance.py",
> 625, in __spawn_instance
I need to look into this. I had fixed ipa-replica-install, rather than
ipa-ca-install to create replicas. I didn't know ipa-ca-install
existed! Should not be too bad to fix though - most likely just need to
move files to the right place.
> 4) What ports does replica need to be open on the master when installing a CA?
> Currently, ipa-replica-conncheck does a port check and checks only for 7389,
> i.e. a port of backend LDAP instance for CA.
Well, right now - the ports required are 80,443 (to get to the CA) and
7389 (for the backend LDAP of the CA). Later, when I submit the patch
to merge the CA and IPA databases, the ldap port required will be 389.
> Now to the patch itself.
> 5) The patch needs a rebase
Yup - will rebase in my next submission.
> 6) The patch itself looks and works fine (with the issues I wrote above), but
> there is currently a lot of hard-coded file paths, instance names or ports. I
> think it would be really great to move most of this to the platform code
> (ipapython/platform/). I think that ideal solution would allow us to choose if
> we want to build FreeIPA with dogtag9 or dogtag10 environment in a build time.
> I am not saying that it is something you would need to do, its just a proposal
> also for other developers. This step would enable us to:
> a) Consolidate CA ports, file paths, instance names etc. to one place
> b) Easily build IPA to non-Fedora platforms where we still need to use dogtag9
This is a great idea. The hard-coded paths etc. are all following the
conventions that were already present. I think you should open a ticket
for this - and we should address this in a separate patch.
> Comments welcome.
Freeipa-devel mailing list