Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
Useful and clean. Just like they are at the moment. Personally, I would rather it be complete with pitfalls that may be encountered during an upgrade, that need manual resolution. As far as I am aware, deleting some files that require manual execution in the first place isn't much of a catastrophe. Sure, if something is no longer supported it should be mentioned in the upgrade instructions, so the users can prepare for it in advance. This is already done to the best extent possible (ie. Advanced notice: Big changes coming soon!). Having used OpenBSD since 4.9, I have been doing upgrades on some non-critical systems and clean-installs on critical ones. If I want to ensure something will work 100%, I'm not going to risk an upgrade. In my experience, upgrades to any operating system is highly unlikely to be like-for-like to a clean installation. On Sun, 9 Nov 2014 13:36:59 -0700 (MST) Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote: I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh, rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that files like /etc/rc.d/rwhod or /usr/bin/rwho should be removed. How much of a catastrophy is this? Question for the community: Do you want the upgrade instructions to be 100% useful, or 100% complete?
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 23:44, Nick Holland wrote: own. You will have a lot of testing to do. You will note that while deleting rwhod was undoubtedly exciting for developers, actually putting it on current.html -- so I could put it on upgrade56.html -- was not nearly as much fun and never happened For very much the same reasons you mentioned. There's no reason why leaving it or many other deleted programs behind would cause trouble, and the instructions end up bloating the page. Following current should be relatively easy; hundreds of lines of shell commands that need to be run very precisely works against that principle. I'm the developer who deleted rwho, and yet lookie here: ll /usr/bin/rwho -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 11160 Mar 24 2014 /usr/bin/rwho* Oh noes! Oh noes! Oh noes!
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 23:44, Nick Holland wrote: own. You will have a lot of testing to do. You will note that while deleting rwhod was undoubtedly exciting for developers, actually putting it on current.html -- so I could put it on upgrade56.html -- was not nearly as much fun and never happened For very much the same reasons you mentioned. There's no reason why leaving it or many other deleted programs behind would cause trouble, and the instructions end up bloating the page. Following current should be relatively easy; hundreds of lines of shell commands that need to be run very precisely works against that principle. I'm the developer who deleted rwho, and yet lookie here: ll /usr/bin/rwho -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 11160 Mar 24 2014 /usr/bin/rwho* Oh noes! Oh noes! Oh noes! This is the email where I call a few people fanatics. Originally, this web page did not exist. When it first arrived, basically it said If in doubt, reinstall Later, it started having some hints so that you could get from point A to point B during a make build; basically it would advise for deleting some .h files which would get in the way during a new 'make build'. Then a few thinks not in that scope got added. And now some fanatics want this to be an authoritative document detailing how to emulate a 'fresh install' on top of their upgrade cycle. Yes, you are quite plainly fanatics. I am tempted to fanatic right back at you, by deleting everything in the web page that isn't needed to help make build.
rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
Hi all, I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh, rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that files like /etc/rc.d/rwhod or /usr/bin/rwho should be removed. Sören.
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh, rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that files like /etc/rc.d/rwhod or /usr/bin/rwho should be removed. How much of a catastrophy is this? Question for the community: Do you want the upgrade instructions to be 100% useful, or 100% complete?
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 01:36:59PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh, rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that files like /etc/rc.d/rwhod or /usr/bin/rwho should be removed. How much of a catastrophy is this? Question for the community: Do you want the upgrade instructions to be 100% useful, or 100% complete? 100% complete should be the goal. I expect a system that is upgraded from 5.5 to 5.6 (following the upgrade documentation) to be in the _exact_ same state as a clean 5.6 installation, barring changes local to the system. Kind regards, Job
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
Le Dimanche 9 Novembre 2014 21:36 CET, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org a écrit: I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh, rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that files like /etc/rc.d/rwhod or /usr/bin/rwho should be removed. How much of a catastrophy is this? Question for the community: Do you want the upgrade instructions to be 100% useful, or 100% complete? Hi, IMHO, first useful then complete . -- Eric JACQUOT
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
On 2014/11/09 22:08, Job Snijders wrote: On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 01:36:59PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh, rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that files like /etc/rc.d/rwhod or /usr/bin/rwho should be removed. How much of a catastrophy is this? Question for the community: Do you want the upgrade instructions to be 100% useful, or 100% complete? 100% complete should be the goal. I expect a system that is upgraded from 5.5 to 5.6 (following the upgrade documentation) to be in the _exact_ same state as a clean 5.6 installation, barring changes local to the system. I disagree. Consider the case of default MTA or default web server. I expect the upgrade instructions to show me how to upgrade the system keeping it running as before as much as possible. If I wanted it to work how it does on a clean install, I'd just do a clean install...
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org wrote: On 2014/11/09 22:08, Job Snijders wrote: On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 01:36:59PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh, rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that files like /etc/rc.d/rwhod or /usr/bin/rwho should be removed. How much of a catastrophy is this? Question for the community: Do you want the upgrade instructions to be 100% useful, or 100% complete? 100% complete should be the goal. I expect a system that is upgraded from 5.5 to 5.6 (following the upgrade documentation) to be in the _exact_ same state as a clean 5.6 installation, barring changes local to the system. I disagree. Consider the case of default MTA or default web server. I expect the upgrade instructions to show me how to upgrade the system keeping it running as before as much as possible. If I wanted it to work how it does on a clean install, I'd just do a clean install... The old binaries won't run on the new kernel anyway. When the default has been changed but the old default remains, the upgrade instructions should say so and say what to do to change the default. You can continue running the old default if you want. When the old software has been removed completely, the old binaries are useless anyway. The instructions should be complete, but nobody should ever run who on a 5.6 system. Therefore you could claim running rwho is undefined, so it doesn't matter whether it still exists or not. Maybe this isn't such a good idea if /usr/bin comes before /usr/local/bin in your path. -- Martin Brandenburg
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
On 2014/11/09 21:41, Martin Brandenburg wrote: Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org wrote: On 2014/11/09 22:08, Job Snijders wrote: On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 01:36:59PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh, rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that files like /etc/rc.d/rwhod or /usr/bin/rwho should be removed. How much of a catastrophy is this? Question for the community: Do you want the upgrade instructions to be 100% useful, or 100% complete? 100% complete should be the goal. I expect a system that is upgraded from 5.5 to 5.6 (following the upgrade documentation) to be in the _exact_ same state as a clean 5.6 installation, barring changes local to the system. I disagree. Consider the case of default MTA or default web server. I expect the upgrade instructions to show me how to upgrade the system keeping it running as before as much as possible. If I wanted it to work how it does on a clean install, I'd just do a clean install... The old binaries won't run on the new kernel anyway. When the default Very often, the old binaries will still run, at least within a couple of releases. There are some special cases where they won't (like the time_t flag day), but they aren't all that frequent, that's why they're called flag days. has been changed but the old default remains, the upgrade instructions should say so and say what to do to change the default. You can continue running the old default if you want. When the old software has been removed completely, the old binaries are useless anyway. I was answering the specific point about the _exact_ same state as a clean 5.6 installation there. There are some specific cases where it makes a lot of sense to tell people to rm things (e.g. base program moved to ports). And some cases where it really doesn't matter (old gcc-lib, site_perl dirs), people who particularly want a cleaned-up system will use find, others won't care. And some like this where it could probably go either way.. The instructions should be complete, but nobody should ever run who on a 5.6 system. Therefore you could claim running rwho is undefined, so it doesn't matter whether it still exists or not. Maybe this isn't such a good idea if /usr/bin comes before /usr/local/bin in your path. -- Martin Brandenburg
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 10:02:32PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: I was answering the specific point about the _exact_ same state as a clean 5.6 installation there. There are some specific cases where it makes a lot of sense to tell people to rm things (e.g. base program moved to ports). And some cases where it really doesn't matter (old gcc-lib, site_perl dirs), people who particularly want a cleaned-up system will use find, others won't care. And some like this where it could probably go either way.. If during the upgrade you decide to continue using the then non-default MTA I consider that a local change. Documentation helps identify which parts of your system are non-5.6-default. In the case of rwho friends it should have been documentated, and probably a 'rm' hint should have been provided. Kind regards, Job
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 10:02:32PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: I was answering the specific point about the _exact_ same state as a clean 5.6 installation there. There are some specific cases where it makes a lot of sense to tell people to rm things (e.g. base program moved to ports). And some cases where it really doesn't matter (old gcc-lib, site_perl dirs), people who particularly want a cleaned-up system will use find, others won't care. And some like this where it could probably go either way.. If during the upgrade you decide to continue using the then non-default MTA I consider that a local change. Documentation helps identify which parts of your system are non-5.6-default. In the case of rwho friends it should have been documentated, and probably a 'rm' hint should have been provided. Kind regards, The right way to express your dissapointment with the current handling of current.html, is to submit changes to the web pages before others do. Not complaints. Changes. The complaint department is down the hall.
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 01:36:59PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh, rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that files like /etc/rc.d/rwhod or /usr/bin/rwho should be removed. How much of a catastrophy is this? Question for the community: Do you want the upgrade instructions to be 100% useful, or 100% complete? 100% complete should be the goal. I expect a system that is upgraded from 5.5 to 5.6 (following the upgrade documentation) to be in the _exact_ same state as a clean 5.6 installation, barring changes local to the system. Such strong words. Basically, you are requesting others to do a lot of work. It must be easy to sit in your chair and demand that others meet your expectations.
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote: Question for the community: Do you want the upgrade instructions to be 100% useful, or 100% complete? Neither; 100% is unrealistic. Getting '90%' on either measure exceeds my expectations. The only expectation that I have is that any significant changes likely to cause problems are flagged - and that's already covered in the FAQ: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/upgrade56.html#headsup The amount of work and commitment that goes into maintaining the list of changes is impressive (e.g. http://www.openbsd.org/plus56.html and the summary http://www.openbsd.org/56.html). All I can say is thank you.
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
Neither; 100% is unrealistic. Getting '90%' on either measure exceeds my expectations. The same percentage of flights would be acceptable? I think that problem has been highlighted and we now belongs to all users to check and submit oversights. My 2 cents, Regards, -- Eric JACQUOT
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
Agreed that 100% is the goal - and I'm prepared to try and help achieve this. I already think what is done is pretty damn good - it far exceeds *my* expectations. You've obviously never flown in Australia. 100% of flights *do not* leave on time. There are errors and glitches - but fortunately nothing catastrophic. Getting back to topic, is having an old binary (rwhod) not deleted during an upgrade catastrophic? I don't think so. I can't fault the current process for OpenBSD. Cheers, Michael On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Eric JACQUOT ejacq...@delfic.org wrote: Neither; 100% is unrealistic. Getting '90%' on either measure exceeds my expectations. The same percentage of flights would be acceptable? I think that problem has been highlighted and we now belongs to all users to check and submit oversights. My 2 cents, Regards, -- Eric JACQUOT
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
On 11/09/14 16:07, Job Snijders wrote: On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 01:36:59PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh, rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that files like /etc/rc.d/rwhod or /usr/bin/rwho should be removed. How much of a catastrophy is this? Question for the community: Do you want the upgrade instructions to be 100% useful, or 100% complete? 100% complete should be the goal. I expect a system that is upgraded from 5.5 to 5.6 (following the upgrade documentation) to be in the _exact_ same state as a clean 5.6 installation, barring changes local to the system. wow. See the third paragraph of any of the upgrade documents from 3.7 until 5.5. I removed that paragraph this release because I figured it was probably self-evident to people who understood which end of their digestive tract to put the fresh food into. Perhaps I overestimated. I would invite you to give it a shot. Start with current.html, plus56.html, anything else you wish. Not a lot of the developers really care a lot about the document, so they won't have been keeping current.html super accurate, you are basically on your own. You will have a lot of testing to do. You will note that while deleting rwhod was undoubtedly exciting for developers, actually putting it on current.html -- so I could put it on upgrade56.html -- was not nearly as much fun and never happened When you get it all done...look at your work. Can you imagine someone following it for 50 machines they support? How about 500? Can they use it for all of the 17 or so platforms OpenBSD supports? Can they do it from a remote site with no console access? is it the _exact_ same as a fresh install? Oh, to add to the realism, do it while holding down a full-time+ job, a few other volunteer activities, and cool-ass vehicles that beg to be driven any time the weather doesn't suck and a significant other you like to spend time with. BTW: if you fuck it up, you will cause a lot of people all over the world to have really really bad days. So don't fuck up. No pressure or anything. And in less than six months, you get to do it again. The good news is, if you do a half-way decent job, only two people complain: you and one other person (the other person does many things to contribute to the project, however), and you get lots of positive feedback. Can you make a better one than me? Give it a shot. Really. It's win all around. If you succeed, the community wins. Do a great job, I can go spend my time on other things. Win all around. :) The goal of the upgradeXX.html document -- as *I* see it -- is to provide enough information for real administrators of real systems to take their systems from a functional state of the previous release to a functional state of the current release, and leave them in a good state for the NEXT release cycle, too (lather, rinse, repeat, indefinitely). The idea is to be concise enough that the job can be done quickly and easily, and yet provide enough details so that virtually all users can figure out if they have edge cases which might cause them problems. Is the upgraded system identical to a fresh install? No; not a goal of mine. Will there be ashes left over? Yes. I think rwho and friends probably should have been removed as part of that huge list of files to delete, but the negative consequences of not deleting rwho are basically zero. And someone who's infrastructure depends on it might just be happy to find that it still runs on some platforms and might give them a little more time to fix their systems. That's why we aren't obsessive about deleting old library files, too -- you may well have applications, either as packages or things you compiled on your own -- which will still work on the upgraded system and may actually be really important for that system to continue to work (or even boot!) until the updated applications are installed. Does it work always? No, but if it saves the butt of a few administrators, it is almost certainly a net gain. Nick.
Re: rwho on OpenBSD 5.6
Getting back to topic, is having an old binary (rwhod) not deleted during an upgrade catastrophic? I don't think so. You would be mistaken. Wars have been fought over less -- by the absolutists.
