Re: [Bug 427356] Re: Boot Performance Updates
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 01:46 +, Kamilion wrote: Better methods are planned in future Upstart releases which will find their way into future Ubuntu releases. Where's the discussion for this type of stuff currently centered? On the upstream Upstart development list. Scott -- Scott James Remnant sc...@canonical.com -- Boot Performance Updates https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/427356 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to gdm in ubuntu. -- desktop-bugs mailing list desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
Re: [Bug 427356] Re: Boot Performance Updates
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 06:59:43AM -, Kamilion wrote: The new networking scripts failed to find my br0 defined in /etc/network/interfaces. Please open a separate bug report for this against the ifupdown package, and provide the contents of your /etc/network/interfaces. couldn't find out how to disable upstart services, so I ended up moving /etc/init/gdm.conf to /etc/init-disabled/gdm.conf, Any better ways? For the moment, I'm not aware of one. Some simple upstart jobs I'd like to see quickly: opensshd, postfix, bootlogd, kvm/libvirt These are not a priority for the karmic release cycle, and at the moment we have our hands full resolving the bugs that have been identified with those services already converted. You could file wishlist bugs against these packages, but I don't think there'd be much point. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- Boot Performance Updates https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/427356 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to gdm in ubuntu. -- desktop-bugs mailing list desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
Re: [Bug 427356] Re: Boot Performance Updates
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 00:55 +, Ryan wrote:
1. With all the functional package dependency issues, were they not all
set in the debs? eg - How is it that some packages being available and
some not allowed it to mangle so many systems in the field? Shouldn't it
have held off trying to install any until all were in? Were the
dependencies set incorrectly?
The core set of packages had a circular set of dependencies, involving
Essential/required packages. Unfortunately this meant if APT couldn't
see all of them at once, it did the wrong thing when using dist-upgrade.
The reason you couldn't see all of them at once is that the exact same
thing happened to the buildds, and they ended up being unable to
continue building the very packages they needed to unstick themselves.
2. With such a large change (touching so many areas) with such risk
('average' testers unable to boot/recover without a lot launchpad visits
after rescue usb/cd)... Was this tested as set via a PPA etc first and
somehow everyone running via the PPA just had zero issues? - Or was it
direct to test on all the 'normal' alpha uses using the normal repos?
All of the updates were first tested in the ubuntu-boot PPA. No issues
were reported.
Even so, it's quite normal to directly test using the
development/unstable release - that's exactly what it's for. If you're
running the development/unstable release, you should expect regular
problems.
(Though compared to other distros, we seem to do a better job of holding
it all together)
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
sc...@canonical.com
--
Boot Performance Updates
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/427356
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to gdm in ubuntu.
--
desktop-bugs mailing list
desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
Re: [Bug 427356] Re: Boot Performance Updates
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 06:59 +, Kamilion wrote: The new networking scripts failed to find my br0 defined in /etc/network/interfaces. (Fortunately this motherboard has IPMI2 KVM-over-dedicated-IP, otherwise I would have been up a creek) You should file a separate bug for this. couldn't find out how to disable upstart services, so I ended up moving /etc/init/gdm.conf to /etc/init-disabled/gdm.conf, Any better ways? Rename them to .conf-disabled is another. I tend to just comment out the start on line. Better methods are planned in future Upstart releases which will find their way into future Ubuntu releases. Some simple upstart jobs I'd like to see quickly: opensshd, postfix, bootlogd, kvm/libvirt I think we'll largely stick with the current set for karmic; though don't be surprised if karmic+1 work appears in the ubuntu-boot PPA sooner rather than later. Scott -- Scott James Remnant sc...@canonical.com -- Boot Performance Updates https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/427356 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to gdm in ubuntu. -- desktop-bugs mailing list desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
Re: [Bug 427356] Re: Boot Performance Updates
On 09/15/2009 07:55 PM, Ryan wrote:
[snip]
2. With such a large change (touching so many areas) with such risk
('average' testers unable to boot/recover without a lot launchpad visits
after rescue usb/cd)... Was this tested as set via a PPA etc first and
somehow everyone running via the PPA just had zero issues? - Or was it
direct to test on all the 'normal' alpha uses using the normal repos?
The packages were released via the ubuntu-boot team PPAs and tested without
major issues. The problem was not the packages, the problem was the buildds not
being happy in the middle of moving the packages into the archive. With that
said, a discussion has started on how we can modify update-manager, so that in
the future we can basically stop users from upgrading packages when we know the
archive is foobar'd.
--
Boot Performance Updates
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/427356
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to gdm in ubuntu.
--
desktop-bugs mailing list
desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
Re: [Bug 427356] Re: Boot Performance Updates
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 19:10 +, Steve Langasek wrote: Before approving the bulk of these, I have a few questions: - If approved, how soon can these be uploaded? (I think we want the bulk of this to land before alpha-6; if you're ready to go on these, feel free to grab me on IRC so that we can get this on its way.) I'm ready to upload them today, so they'll be before alpha 6. The tasks are a single set though, so they have to go in together or not at all. - Do we have a rollback plan in the event the upstart job conversions don't work as intended, and under what conditions would we decide to roll back? (E.g., what kind of bugs at beta time would be a sign that something is Wrong?) To be honest, I'm pretty confident that we can work out the bugs. I'm already getting reports that situations that didn't work with the old init scripts work now (USB disks mentioned in fstab now being mounted, etc.) I fully expect there to be a few bugs, of course. Rollback plan is obviously going to have to be to revert all the changes, and delete the Upstart jobs restoring the init scripts. - There are a number of packages not on this list which have init scripts whose lsb headers reference packages that are being converted, e.g.: /etc/init.d/libvirt-bin:# Should-Start: hal avahi /etc/init.d/saned:# Should-Start: dbus avahi /etc/init.d/bluetooth:# Required-Start:$local_fs $syslog $remote_fs dbus /etc/init.d/landscape-client:# Required-Start: $local_fs $remote_fs hal dbus /etc/init.d/dns-clean:# Required-Start:$local_fs gdm /etc/init.d/pppd-dns:# Required-Start:$local_fs gdm /etc/init.d/pulseaudio:# Should-Start: udev NetworkManager + countless instances of 'syslog' how are these handled? Are all the native upstart jobs guaranteed to be processed first before running rc? We don't use the LSB headers, so they don't matter. But I do plan to convert them - just not in time for Alpha 6 and I think it's important that we get the root code (filesystem mounting, etc.) as widely tested as possible. Scott -- Scott James Remnant sc...@canonical.com -- Boot Performance Updates https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/427356 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to gdm in ubuntu. -- desktop-bugs mailing list desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
Re: [Bug 427356] Re: Boot Performance Updates
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 17:56 +, Steve Langasek wrote: What does it mean for usplash to be optional in the initramfs? How is initramfs-tools supposed to know at initramfs generation time whether usplash is needed - aren't we still supposed to be using usplash for opportunistic prompts in the initramfs (such as for fsck)? A file placed in /etc/initramfs-tools/conf.d with USPLASH=y tells initramfs-tools that it is needed. We don't do fsck, etc. in the initramfs - the only prompt we do there is asking for a cryptroot password - and that's something that can be handled by cryptsetup. (Right now, not handling it is fine too, it'll just prompt on the console) Scott -- Scott James Remnant sc...@canonical.com -- Boot Performance Updates https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/427356 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to gdm in ubuntu. -- desktop-bugs mailing list desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
Re: [Bug 427356] Re: Boot Performance Updates
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 03:02:23PM -, Scott James Remnant wrote: I'm ready to upload them today, so they'll be before alpha 6. The tasks are a single set though, so they have to go in together or not at all. Ok, please go ahead. - There are a number of packages not on this list which have init scripts whose lsb headers reference packages that are being converted, e.g.: /etc/init.d/libvirt-bin:# Should-Start: hal avahi /etc/init.d/saned:# Should-Start: dbus avahi /etc/init.d/bluetooth:# Required-Start:$local_fs $syslog $remote_fs dbus /etc/init.d/landscape-client:# Required-Start: $local_fs $remote_fs hal dbus /etc/init.d/dns-clean:# Required-Start:$local_fs gdm /etc/init.d/pppd-dns:# Required-Start:$local_fs gdm /etc/init.d/pulseaudio:# Should-Start: udev NetworkManager + countless instances of 'syslog' how are these handled? Are all the native upstart jobs guaranteed to be processed first before running rc? We don't use the LSB headers, so they don't matter. If the LSB headers are accurate declarations of these services' dependencies, and we fail to reliably honor those dependencies, then it matters. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- Boot Performance Updates https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/427356 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to gdm in ubuntu. -- desktop-bugs mailing list desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
Re: [Bug 427356] Re: Boot Performance Updates
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 17:49 +, Steve Langasek wrote: Oh, fair point - so we can start usplash from the root filesystem if needed for fsck prompting? Does this work already today, and if not, is this converging on schedule for release? It's on schedule for release. In some cases, cryptsetup will be installed on systems that aren't using crypted root; so having cryptsetup ship a file under /etc/initramfs- tools/conf.d turning on usplash will cause usplash to be used in some initramfses where it's not needed (and possibly even some systems where no prompting is required). Is that acceptable, or do you have some other plan for how usplash will be selected? I don't think it's a bad thing. If you have cryptsetup installed, one file system or another is bound to be encrypted so you're getting usplash anyway. If you have it installed but no encrypted fs, it's a simple fix to get rid of usplash. Scott -- Scott James Remnant sc...@canonical.com -- Boot Performance Updates https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/427356 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to gdm in ubuntu. -- desktop-bugs mailing list desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
Re: [Bug 427356] Re: Boot Performance Updates
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 17:57 +, Steve Langasek wrote: - There are a number of packages not on this list which have init scripts whose lsb headers reference packages that are being converted, e.g.: /etc/init.d/libvirt-bin:# Should-Start: hal avahi /etc/init.d/saned:# Should-Start: dbus avahi /etc/init.d/bluetooth:# Required-Start:$local_fs $syslog $remote_fs dbus /etc/init.d/landscape-client:# Required-Start: $local_fs $remote_fs hal dbus /etc/init.d/dns-clean:# Required-Start:$local_fs gdm /etc/init.d/pppd-dns:# Required-Start:$local_fs gdm /etc/init.d/pulseaudio:# Should-Start: udev NetworkManager + countless instances of 'syslog' how are these handled? Are all the native upstart jobs guaranteed to be processed first before running rc? We don't use the LSB headers, so they don't matter. If the LSB headers are accurate declarations of these services' dependencies, and we fail to reliably honor those dependencies, then it matters. Why? Nothing uses them. In fact, nothing *can* use them because there isn't one in acpi-support g Scott -- Scott James Remnant sc...@canonical.com -- Boot Performance Updates https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/427356 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to gdm in ubuntu. -- desktop-bugs mailing list desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
Re: [Bug 427356] Re: Boot Performance Updates
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 07:51:11PM -, Scott James Remnant wrote: I don't think it's a bad thing. If you have cryptsetup installed, one file system or another is bound to be encrypted so you're getting usplash anyway. Crypted filesystems can be decrypted using an on-disk key instead of a passphrase; it's debatable whether that's ever sensible, but it does mean there are use cases where cryptsetup is used but doesn't prompt on boot. Anyway, I agree that it's reasonable to have usplash come up in this particular case - just want to make sure we know what we're in for in karmic. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- Boot Performance Updates https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/427356 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to gdm in ubuntu. -- desktop-bugs mailing list desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
