Re: Bug#608253: [Pkg-xen-devel] Release notes addition for Xen support in Debian
On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 21:02 +, Justin B Rye wrote:
(Or unless blah blah manual kernel upgrade blah blah udev, but since
nobody's answering that question I'll assume it's a no.)
I saw this question before, meant to come back to it, and forgot, sorry!
Earlier, Justin wrote:
Mind you, how does this interact with the requirement in the generic
upgrade procedure for a kernel change to handle udev? Might that fix
it, if xen users are going to need a 2.6.32 xen kernel with extra
metapackaginess before they can upgrade the rest of the system?
WRT their interactions with udev and such the linux-image-*xen packages
are just another kernel package so if their is some generic constraint
in the upgrade process due to udev then they are also subject to it.
However I don't think the manual installation of
linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-{686,amd64} step would be sufficient to pull in
the rest of the Xen upgrade. In particular I am reasonably (but not
totally) sure it won't pull in the xen-linux-system-2.6-{686,amd64}
meta-package or the hypervisor update.
Doing the manually install xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-{686,amd64}
installation step at the same stage that any manual kernel installation
step would be done seems like the right thing to do to me.
Ian.
--
Ian Campbell
A lot of people I know believe in positive thinking, and so do I. I
believe everything positively stinks.
-- Lew Col
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#608253: [Pkg-xen-devel] Release notes addition for Xen support in Debian
On 01/30/2011 07:13 AM, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 17:32:51 +, Ian Campbell wrote: BTW, why do we refer users to the wiki instead of including the advice inline in the release notes? Is that just the way the release notes are normally written? No, if the information can reasonably be included inline then we should do that. Pointing at other sources for more information is ok, but basic instructions should be included in the release notes directly, IMO. Cheers, Julien I don't want to point fingers here (so I wont check who's involved), but I've been advised to point at the wiki. Anyway, this paragraph can now be removed if the issue has been fixed. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d45b36b.1060...@goirand.fr
Re: Bug#608253: [Pkg-xen-devel] Release notes addition for Xen support in Debian
Thomas Goirand wrote: I don't want to point fingers here (so I wont check who's involved), but I've been advised to point at the wiki. Anyway, this paragraph can now be removed if the issue has been fixed. I haven't seen any claim of a fix for the issue that xen users need to upgrade manually; just a change in the approved manual procedure. We had: # Upgrades from Lenny will not automatically install Xen version 4.0. Instead # you need to install Xen 4.0 and a corresponding dom0 kernel explicitly. See # the wiki page for instructions on how to set up the Xen hypervisor and dom0 # kernel under Squeeze. Apparently now that there are xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-* metapackages in Squeeze this should read something like: Upgrades from Lenny will not automatically install Xen version 4.0. Instead you should manually install a xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-686 or xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-amd64 metapackage, which will handle the dependencies and should facilitate future upgrades. See the wiki page for configuration instructions. My apologies if this is a clueless question, but I'll ask again: how does this interact with the requirement in the generic upgrade procedure for a kernel change to handle udev? Should we be advising people to do this xen kernel switch early or late in the upgrade? I attach an updated d-l-eified version (this paragraph was the one that didn't need any proofreading). -- JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package section id=xen-upgrades titleXen upgrades/title para If you installed Xen on Lenny, the default kernel booted by grub-legacy was the one providing a Xen hypervisor and dom0 support. This behavior has changed with GRUB 2 in Squeeze: the non-Xen kernel will boot per default. If you need Xen and expect to boot with it by default, there are configuration hints at http://wiki.debian.org/Xen#Installationandconfiguration /para para Upgrades from Lenny will not automatically install Xen version 4.0. Instead you should manually install a xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-686 or xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-amd64 metapackage, which will handle the dependencies and should facilitate future upgrades. See the wiki page for configuration instructions. /para para Squeeze's 2.6.32 Xen kernel uses pvops instead of the forward-ported Xenlinux patch. This means that on Squeeze your domU won't be able to use (for example) sda1 as a device name for its hard drive, since this naming scheme is not available under pvops. Instead you should use (as a corresponding example) xvda1, which is compatible with both old and new Xen kernels. /para /section
Re: Bug#608253: [Pkg-xen-devel] Release notes addition for Xen support in Debian
- Original message - Apparently now that there are xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-* metapackages in Squeeze this should read something like: We have this package in Lenny as well, but it wasn't enough. The claim you just had it from Ian... Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1296419446.6600.3.camel@Nokia-N900-42-11
Re: Bug#608253: [Pkg-xen-devel] Release notes addition for Xen support in Debian
Thomas Goirand wrote: Apparently now that there are xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-* metapackages in Squeeze this should read something like: We have this package in Lenny as well, but it wasn't enough. The claim you just had it from Ian... According to http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=xen-linux-system Lenny has: xen-linux-system-2.6.26-1-xen-686 xen-linux-system-2.6.26-1-xen-amd64 and (via security) xen-linux-system-2.6.26-2-xen-686 xen-linux-system-2.6.26-2-xen-amd64 Sarge/Sid has: xen-linux-system-2.6.32-5-xen-686 xen-linux-system-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64 and (the new additions) xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-686 xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-amd64 With no overlap in package names, there's no automated mechanism for upgrades; Lenny users are just left with obsolete packages installed until they tidy things up. Unless of course there's some Lenny Xen package that gets upgraded into a dummy transition package pulling in all the Xen 4.0 stuff, but if that exists I'm not seeing it. (Or unless blah blah manual kernel upgrade blah blah udev, but since nobody's answering that question I'll assume it's a no.) -- JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110130210243.ga12...@xibalba.demon.co.uk
Re: Bug#608253: [Pkg-xen-devel] Release notes addition for Xen support in Debian
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 15:34:23 +, Justin B Rye wrote: # para # Upgrades from Lenny will not automatically install Xen version 4.0. Instead # you need to install Xen 4.0 and a corresponding dom0 kernel explicitly. See # the wiki page for instructions on how to set up the Xen hypervisor and dom0 # kernel under Squeeze. # /para Is this actually true? Don't the xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-* metapackages take care of this upgrade? Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#608253: [Pkg-xen-devel] Release notes addition for Xen support in Debian
- Original message - On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 15:34:23 +, Justin B Rye wrote: # para # Upgrades from Lenny will not automatically install Xen version 4.0. Instead # you need to install Xen 4.0 and a corresponding dom0 kernel explicitly. See # the wiki page for instructions on how to set up the Xen hypervisor and dom0 # kernel under Squeeze. # /para Is this actually true? Don't the xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-* metapackages take care of this upgrade? Cheers, Julien I wrote this after experimenting it myself on my Xen development server! Unless this changed over the last month it is true, and I wrote bug reports for it. It might be worth trying again and see what happens, and maybe link to the bug entry. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1296320962.5101.2.camel@Nokia-N900-42-11
Re: Bug#608253: [Pkg-xen-devel] Release notes addition for Xen support in Debian
On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 01:09 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: - Original message - On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 15:34:23 +, Justin B Rye wrote: # para # Upgrades from Lenny will not automatically install Xen version 4.0. Instead # you need to install Xen 4.0 and a corresponding dom0 kernel explicitly. See # the wiki page for instructions on how to set up the Xen hypervisor and dom0 # kernel under Squeeze. # /para Is this actually true? Don't the xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-* metapackages take care of this upgrade? Cheers, Julien I wrote this after experimenting it myself on my Xen development server! Unless this changed over the last month it is true, and I wrote bug reports for it. It might be worth trying again and see what happens, and maybe link to the bug entry. xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-amd64 and xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-686 were added to Squeeze when linux-latest-2.6 was uploaded last week, closing bug #402414. So I think the advice now should be to install one of those metapackages rather than the current advice to install specific hypervisor and linux-image packages. This will facilitate future upgrades. Can your bugs, #606589 and merged #606590, also be closed due to the addition of the metapackages and/or this advice to the release notes? BTW, why do we refer users to the wiki instead of including the advice inline in the release notes? Is that just the way the release notes are normally written? Ian. -- Ian Campbell Make headway at work. Continue to let things deteriorate at home. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#608253: [Pkg-xen-devel] Release notes addition for Xen support in Debian
Julien Cristau wrote: # Upgrades from Lenny will not automatically install Xen version 4.0. Instead # you need to install Xen 4.0 and a corresponding dom0 kernel explicitly. See # the wiki page for instructions on how to set up the Xen hypervisor and dom0 # kernel under Squeeze. Is this actually true? Don't the xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-* metapackages take care of this upgrade? I Am Not A Xenologist, but see http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=xen There's no such package in Lenny; its equivalent was the old xen-linux-system-2.6.26-2-xen-* metapackage (pulling in an old-style hypervisor and a xenlinux kernel). That doesn't turn into a dummy dependency package in Squeeze - it just disappears from the listings and leaves users scratching their heads. Mind you, how does this interact with the requirement in the generic upgrade procedure for a kernel change to handle udev? Might that fix it, if xen users are going to need a 2.6.32 xen kernel with extra metapackaginess before they can upgrade the rest of the system? -- JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian sysadmin, and PROBABLY NO CLUE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PACKAGE -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110129170021.ga29...@xibalba.demon.co.uk
Re: Bug#608253: [Pkg-xen-devel] Release notes addition for Xen support in Debian
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 17:32:51 +, Ian Campbell wrote: BTW, why do we refer users to the wiki instead of including the advice inline in the release notes? Is that just the way the release notes are normally written? No, if the information can reasonably be included inline then we should do that. Pointing at other sources for more information is ok, but basic instructions should be included in the release notes directly, IMO. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
