Dne 3.3.2015 v 09:55 Martin Basti napsal(a):
On 03/03/15 09:33, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 3.3.2015 v 09:06 Martin Basti napsal(a):
On 03/03/15 07:31, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 2.3.2015 v 13:51 Martin Basti napsal(a):
On 02/03/15 13:12, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 2.3.2015 v 12:23 Martin Kosek napsal(a):
On 03/02/2015 07:49 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

Dne 24.2.2015 v 19:10 Martin Basti napsal(a):
Hello all,

please read the design page, any objections/suggestions


* Merge server update commands into the one command

So there is "ipa-server-install" to install the server,
--uninstall" to uninstall the server and "ipa-server-upgrade" to
upgrade the
server. Maybe we should bring some consistency here and have one

  a) "ipa-server-install [--install]", "ipa-server-install
"ipa-server-install --upgrade"

  b) "ipa-server-install [install]", "ipa-server-install
"ipa-server-install upgrade"

  c) "ipa-server-install", "ipa-server-uninstall",

Long term, I think we want C. Besides other advantages, it will let
us have
independent sets of options, based on what you want to do.


* Prevent to run IPA service, if code version and configuration
version does
not match
   * ipactl should execute ipa-server-upgrade if needed

There should be no configuration version, configuration update
should be run
always. It's fast and hence does not need to be optimized like data
update by
using a monolithic version number, which brings more than a few
problems on its

I do not agree in this section. Why would you like to run it always,
even if it
was fast? No run is still faster than fast run.

In the ideal case the installer would be idempotent and upgrade would
be re-running the installer and we should aim to do just that. We
of do that already, but there is a lot of code duplication in
installers and ipa-upgradeconfig (I would like to fix that when
refactoring installers). IMO it's better to always make 100% sure the
configuration is correct rather than to save a second or two.
I doesn't like this idea, if user wants to fix something, the one
use --skip-version-check option, and the IPA upgrade will be executed.

Well, what I don't like is dealing with meaningless version numbers.
They are causing us grief in API versioning and I don't see why it
would be any different here.
However you must keep the version because of schema and data upgrade, so
why not to execute update as one batch instead of doing config upgrade
all the time, and then data upgrade only if required.

Because there is no exact mapping between version number and what
features are actually available. A state file is tons better than a
single version number.

Some configuration upgrades, like adding new DNS related services,
requires new schema, how we can handle this?

This does not sound right. Could you be more specific?
at least ipa-dnskeysyncd service, requires updated schema for keys
This service is mandratory for DNS, so it is newly configured during
Now it works because schema update is the first, so during configuration
upgrade we have actual schema.

Right, but what's your point? We are not discussing order of updates here, I'm perfectly fine with schema updates being done before configuration updates.

Running schema upgrade every time?

What if a service changes in a way, the IPA configuration will not

Then it's a bug and needs to be fixed, like any other bug. IIRC there
was only one or two occurences of such bug in the past 3 years (I
remember sshd_config), so I don't think you have a strong case here.

The user will need to change it manually, but after each restart,
upgrade will change the value back into IPA required configuration
will not work.

Says who? It's our code, we can do whatever we want, it doesn't have
to be dumb like this.

Yes, we have upgrade state file, but then the comparing of one
value is
faster then checking each state if was executed.

How faster is that, like, few milliseconds? Are you seriously
considering this the right optimization in a process that is
magnitudes slower?
Ok the speed is not so important, but I still do not like the idea of
executing the code which is not needed to be executed, because I know
the version is the same as was before last restart, so nothing changed.

Weren't "clever" optimizations like this what got us into this whole
refactoring bussiness in the first place?
The "clever" optimizations worked in past, but IPA grown and now
contains constraints/requirements which nobody expected.

Yes, then why do we need another one, especially so when it does not provide any significant speed-up?

What if we
will need some update which needs to execute time-consuming system check
during every upgrade in future?

Then we deal with the optimization in the future, instead of doing it prematurely now.

User can always run the upgrade manually, with --skip-version-check, and
then configuration plugins will decide if the upgrade is needed.

My personal opinion is, application should not try to fix itself every

One could say that application should not try to upgrade itself every
restart, but here we are, doing it anyway...
I want to do upgrade only if needed not every restart.

If there is nothing to upgrade, nothing will be upgraded. The effect
is the same.

In the past, I do not recall
ipa-upgradeconfig as being really fast, especially certmonger/Dogtag
updates were really slow thank to service restarts, etc.

Correct, but I was talking about configuration file updates, not
(re)starts, which have to always be done in ipactl anyway.


* Prevent user to use ipa-upgradeconfig and ipa-ldap-updater

Even without arguments? Is ipactl now the only right place to
trigger manual
Sorry, I will add more details there, if this is not clear.
ipa-upgrateconfig will be removed
ipa-ldap-updater will not be able to do overall update, you will
need to
specify options and update file.


Plugins are called from update files, using new directive

Why "update-plugin" and not just "plugin"? Do you expect other
of plugins
to be called from update files in the future? (I certainly don't.)

I have no strong feelings on this one, but IMO it is always
better to
have some
"plan B" if we choose to indeed implement some yet unforeseen plugin

I doubt that will happen, but if it does, we can always add
"plan-b-plugin" directive.
I do not insist on "update-plugin", I just wanted to be more specific
which type of plugin is expected there.

Well, the names of the files end with .update and they are located in
/usr/share/ipa/updates, I think that's enough hints as to what type of
plugin is expected.



New class UpdatePlugin is used for all update plugins.

Just reuse the existing Updater class, no need to reinvent the


I wonder why configuration update is done after data update and not
before. I
know it's been like that for a long time, but it seems kind of
unnatural to me,
especially now when schema update is separate from data update.
We need schema update first, but I haven't found any services which
to have updated data (I might be wrong)


keep --test option and fix the plugins which do not respect the

Just a note, I believe this ticket is related:

Good work overall!


Jan Cholasta

Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to