On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:16:14AM +0100, Pavlos Parissis wrote: > > > On 06/01/2016 08:49 πμ, Baptiste wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Ryan O'Hara <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Are there any known incompatibilities between a config file for > >> haproxy version 1.5 and 1.6? Specifically, is there anything that is > >> valid in 1.5 that is no longer valid in 1.6? I'm asking because I am > >> considering a rebase of haproxy 1.6 in Fedora/RHEL but need to avoid > >> such issues. If I recall, I rebased from 1.4 to 1.5 in Fedora many > >> months back and a user ran into a problem in this regard. Any > >> information is greatly appreciated! > >> > >> Ryan > >> > >> > > > > Hi Ryan, > > > > My answer won't be exhaustive, sorry about that. Hopefully, other > > people may help. > > > > I think the configuration parser is less permissive. IE, 2 frontends > > or 2 backends can't have the same name. > > The configuration where the listening IP:port address is set on the > > 'frontend' line is not allowed anymore. > > > > More ALERT may also be triggered when the configuration parser doesn't > > understand a keyword while those keywords used to be silently ignored. > > (check alertif_too_many_args_idx() ). > > > > So by definition, many configuration may be broken. > > > > It depends on the configuration. I have migrated 1.5 installations to > 1.6 with zero configuration problems, but my configurations were quite > simple. > > People with complex configuration or configuration which was created on > 1.4 and silently copied to 1.5 may see issues on 1.6.
This is precisely why I am asking on the upstream mailing list. If there are known incompatibilities, this is the place to ask! :) > Spec file can run configuration check(-f <file> -c) after installation > and print a warning if configuration is in valid. I'm well aware, but I'm the package maintainer so I don't have all the config files to test. :) Thanks! Ryan
