[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
Here is an upgrade of PMUbuntu with Debian support included: # tar tvf ibmpmlinux_3.4.1-1_20160916.tar -rw-r--r-- root/root 19848 2016-09-16 12:13 ibmpmlinux_3.4.1-1.debian.tar.xz -rw-r--r-- root/root536235 2016-09-16 12:13 ibmpmlinux_3.4.1.orig.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- root/root402410 2016-09-16 12:14 ibmpmlinux_3.4.1-1_ppc64el.deb ** Attachment added: "Enhanced PMLinux tar files and their result from dpkg-buildpackage" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+attachment/4742188/+files/ibmpmlinux_3.4.1-1_20160916.tar -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1549300] Re: dialog wrongly requires double backslashes (\\n, \\Z) for control codes in option file
As expected, dialog gets fully recovered in the recent Ubuntu 16.10 (Yakkety Yak) Daily Build root@ubt1610:~# dpkg -l dialog ||/ Name Version Architecture Description +++----== ii dialog 1.3-20160424-1 ppc64el Displays user-friendly dialog boxes from shell scripts -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1549300 Title: dialog wrongly requires double backslashes (\\n, \\Z) for control codes in option file To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dialog/+bug/1549300/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1549300] Re: dialog wrongly requires double backslashes (\\n, \\Z) for control codes in option file
Checking the latest note in the changelog, this bug might have been fixed recently: http://invisible-island.net/dialog/CHANGES.html#t20121230 2016/04/24 + fix a special case in drawing shadow on a line-drawing cell where the alternate-character set flag was lost (report by Martin Kravec). + fix a regression from 2015/05/13 changes for escaping; it is necessary to retain backslashes within quotes to make "\Z" escapes work (report by Marcin Krol). WAIT & SEE a future release of dialog (1.4 by guessing). -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1549300 Title: dialog wrongly requires double backslashes (\\n, \\Z) for control codes in option file To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dialog/+bug/1549300/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1549300] Re: dialog wrongly requires double backslashes (\\n, \\Z) for control codes in option file
Unfortunately, the same bug now occurs on Fedora 24, with: dialog-1.3-3.20160209.fc24.ppc64le (Build Date : Fri 19 Feb 2016 11:26:24 PM CST), from the latest build: http://mirrors.rit.edu/fedora/fedora-secondary/releases/test/24_Alpha/Server/ppc64le/iso/Fedora-Server-dvd-ppc64le-24_Alpha-1.3.iso 2016-Mar-29 22:14:02 1.8G -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1549300 Title: dialog wrongly requires double backslashes (\\n, \\Z) for control codes in option file To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dialog/+bug/1549300/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1549300] Re: dialog wrongly requires double backslashes (\\n, \\Z) for control codes in option file
Whiptail is too simple. It even has no form input box, so there's no way for it to be an alternative for dialog that is popular with non-Ubuntu Linux systems. It's weird that the Ubuntu team pays more attention to whiptail than to dialog. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1549300 Title: dialog wrongly requires double backslashes (\\n, \\Z) for control codes in option file To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dialog/+bug/1549300/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1549300] Re: dialog wrongly requires double backslashes (\\n, \\Z) for control codes in option file
What are you talking about? There is no point that dialog is not supported on Ubuntu ppc64el server! In fact, dialog package is available by default in apt archive repository: http://us.ports.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-ports, in the same main URL as dash's: http://us.ports.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-ports/pool/main/d/dialog/dialog_1.2-20150920-1ubuntu1_ppc64el.deb http://us.ports.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-ports/pool/main/d/dash/dash_0.5.8-2.1ubuntu2_ppc64el.deb for quick installation for all Ubuntu releases up to 16.04 (Xenial Xerus) so far, as demonstrated below: root@ubt1604KD2:/# uname -a Linux ubt1604KD2 4.4.0-15-generic #31-Ubuntu SMP Fri Mar 18 19:06:23 UTC 2016 ppc64le ppc64le ppc64le GNU/Linux root@ubt1604KD2:~# apt install dialog Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following NEW packages will be installed: dialog 0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 199 kB of archives. After this operation, 1,311 kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://us.ports.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-ports xenial/main ppc64el dialog ppc64el 1.2-20150920-1ubuntu1 [199 kB] Fetched 199 kB in 0s (255 kB/s) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1549300 Title: dialog wrongly requires double backslashes (\\n, \\Z) for control codes in option file To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dialog/+bug/1549300/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
Hi Mathieu, As my regard to your comment #45, I did some minor changes for your further review. # tar tvf ibmpmlinux_3.2.2-1_20160302.tar -rw-r--r-- root/root 19472 2016-03-02 16:25 ibmpmlinux_3.2.2-1.debian.tar.xz -rw-r--r-- root/root537644 2016-03-02 16:25 ibmpmlinux_3.2.2.orig.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- root/root402482 2016-03-02 16:26 ibmpmlinux_3.2.2-1_ppc64el.deb Here are my responses to your detailed concerns: - Version for Ubuntu should be -0ubuntu1 rather than -1. This is important, since there isn't an ibmpmlinux package in Debian currently that we sync to ubuntu. Should there be, then it would be fine to ship a package with a version -1ubuntu1. The 'ubuntu' suffix denotes it is an upload for ubuntu. Answer: Adding a long string "ubuntu" in the version field is not a good idea. It unnecessarily expands a package file name, which could cause troubles everywhere. Particularly, PMLinux programs can work fine (compatible) for all Linux variants that we support (RedHat, SuSE, Fedora, Ubuntu, and PowerKVM). It seems no meaning to have PMLinux pakage with a "ubuntu" tag. - If you must use an internal revision number following a - in the filename for the include source tarball, then let's modify debian/rules to account for this. Either debian/rules should go extract the specific file needed for the version, or it should avoid that entirely and just extract any tarball named ibmpmlinux_*.tgz Answer: We have no special versioning need for PMLinux. The release- version format "r.r.r-v" that PMLinux adapted is popular for Linux platforms. By search, there exist more than a half pakcages without "ubuntu" in their version strings on Ubuntu 16.04 and apt/dpkg can handle properly at present. We hope to maintain the same if no change is mandatory. - Even the architecture name there is irrelevant if there won't be a build for other architectures. This would mean it's possible to remove all the variables aside from $package. Answer: We have other builds in rpm format for ppc64 Big/little Endians. The architecture mark is critical because PMLinux packages are "global" and "exchangable": For example, PMLinux's RPM package is supposed to work well on a Ubuntu system (if rpm tool installed). - override_dh_clean: rm -rf there will not do anything, it is unnecessary, since there will not be an ibmpmlinux directory to remove (since things are extracted to debian/tmp, which will get cleaned up automatically. Answer: Commented it out as per your suggestion. Thanks. - no need for preinst or postrm. Running verify or uninstall in postinst/prerm is most likely wrong. Answer: Not really. Those function blocks are necessary even if for a package that remains still after installed, not to mention that PMLinux is "dynamic" package. In PMLinux case: 1) preinst is to backup the old daemon programs for comparisons later in postinst for whether to restart the process(es) in upgrade. 2) postrm is to remove PMLinux's temporary data storage and flexible configurations etc generated/changed after installed that apt/dpkg are not aware of. Nothing above is handlable without those scriptlets. Apt/Dpkg can not handle the necessity of restarting old daemons in an upgrade, nor able to uninstall PMLinux with a upstart job after installed PMLinux with a service of systemd in the past (scenario: the user might rollback systemd to upstart, or vice versa). - It is just as easy (not to say easier) to not run them at all and ship the right files from the source of the package. Tuning configuration is fine, but we should not create new directories, symlinks, and such, since that short-circuits the package installation processes from apt and dpkg. They will handle package updates and removing files just fine. Answer: No. apt/dpkg can't do that fine, because PMLinux won't stand still after installed. PMLinux contains data-collecting daemons which do need to create a new directory for data storage under its home path. It is neither fine for tuning configuration. Configuration includes init service rollback or upgrade (upstart <-> systemd) which may result in file content & location changes that apt/dpkg can not manage at all. - In other words, if the source already ships all the right files (including a pre-made systemd service and reasonable default config), then all the maintainer scripts (postinst, preinst, prerm, postrm) can be removed. Otherwise, I would strongly recommend not keeping preinst and postrm. Postrm is completely unnecessary if the symlinks are done using dh_link (see below). Answer: Pre-made systemd is an impossible task. PMLinux.deb installation is a dynamic and adapting procedure. Nothing can be pre-made to fit such a blooming Linux world with so many dependencies. As answered above, systemd vs. upstart is one, PMLinux install vs upgrade is another, and many more, like etc/cron vs spool/cron, Ubuntu vs non-Ubuntu layouts,
[Bug 1549300] Re: dialog wrongly requires double backslashes (\\n, \\Z) for control codes in option file
** Package changed: ubuntu => dialog (Ubuntu) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1549300 Title: dialog wrongly requires double backslashes (\\n, \\Z) for control codes in option file To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dialog/+bug/1549300/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
Hi Mathieu,
Following my comment #36, now we have finished the work items of dark
blue in the schedule: PMUbuntu starts to be installed with an init
Service/Job script of sysV, upstart, or systemd. As a service/job, the
PM Data Collector daemon will be started from system boot of runlevel
2-5. Please review at your convenience.
# tar tvf ibmpmlinux_3.2.1-1_20160122.tar
-rw-r--r-- root/root 19468 2016-01-22 19:32 ibmpmlinux_3.2.1-1.debian.tar.xz
-rw-r--r-- root/root536035 2016-01-22 19:32 ibmpmlinux_3.2.1.orig.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- root/root401598 2016-01-22 19:32 ibmpmlinux_3.2.1-1_ppc64el.deb
Here I just quote the description regarding this feature from
/opt/ibm/pm/README:
PMLinux SERVICE/JOB
PMLinux started to be installed as a service/job since version 3.2.0-1.
This is to support manipulating PMLinux process with the
common Linux service/job management interface, such as "service PMLinux
{start|stop|status}" etc. Meanwhile, PMLinux process will
be started from the init-rc.d sequence in system booting for every
multi-user run-level, and PMLinux's cron frequency is properly
adjusted from "hourly" to "daily" with this startup method.
New command "initservice.PMLnx" was initiated into PMLinux package for this
purpose. By default, the program probes what methods
(of sysV, systemd or upstart) are available on the system, and follows the
best one to define/enable the service/job control code
for PMLinux application accordingly in one of the following files:
/etc/init.d/PMLinux# sysV varieties
{LSBbase|rc_d|init_d}, all obsolete
/etc/init/PMLinux.conf # upstart, popular for
earlier Debian/Ubuntu releases
/lib/systemd/system/PMLinux.service# systemd, the latest trend
for all recent Linux releases
In general, it is not supposed to run this program manually, unless you
have to select a non-default method, or destruct PMLinux
service/job encapsulation. Moreover, it is not blessed to handle PMLinux
daemon with non-service/PMLinux tools, because that may
mess up the process status inside the service/job utilities. Anyway,
PMLinux certainly remains robust as before no matter how the
control interface is configured and utilized.
Here are some command examples under this topic:
(A) Construct PMLinux service/job # on the check list of
verify.PMLnx (run by command line or installation scripts)
# initservice.PMLnx # create PMLinux init
script with current method, or the best if missing/OFF
Constructing PMLinux service on [IBMpKVM3.1.0.45.0::LSBbase,rc_d,systemd*]
...
Created symlink from
/etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/PMLinux.service to
/usr/lib/systemd/system/PMLinux.service.
Register PMLinux service/job ... done
SUCCESS! (at /lib/systemd/system/PMLinux.service)
Redirecting to /bin/systemctl start PMLinux.service
(B) Change PMLinux service/job with another method
# initservice.PMLnx -J rc_d # Do (A) with an
old/obsolete method "rc_d" ("systemd" seems better)
Reset PM_INIT_SERVICEJOB=rc_d in /var/perf/pm/config/PMLinux.cfg ... done!
Constructing PMLinux service on [IBMpKVM3.1.0.45.0::LSBbase,rc_d*,systemd]
...
Register PMLinux service/job ... done
SUCCESS! (at /etc/init.d/PMLinux) # rc_d script is based on
the profile /etc/init.d/functions, while
# LSBbase's on
/lib/lsb/init-functions, and so on for init_d ...
Starting PMLinux (via systemctl): [ OK ]
(C) Start PMLinux Service Daemon# similarly, you may use
"stop" or "status" to stop or check PMLinux:
# service PMLinux start # "service" command is
generic for all Linux platforms
# start PMLinux # for Ubuntu/Debian only,
where "start" is a "command" if upstart installed!
# systemctl start PMLinux # specific for systemd, or
# be attentional:
serivce/job status integrity might be broken & you have to:
# service PMLinux restart # restart if PMLinux was
stopped by non-service command "kill"
(D) Deregister PMLinux service/job # just in case of
emergency, like system boot hanging at PMLinux service start
# initservice.PMLnx OFF # disable and remove
PMLinux service/job file if existed
# verify.PMLnx # Must repair PMLinux
integrity after you separately run initservice.PMLnx
** Attachment added: "Enhanced PMLinux tar files and their result from
dpkg-buildpackage"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+attachment/4555165/+files/ibmpmlinux_3.2.1-1_20160122.tar
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
[Bug 1503826] Re: Boot hangs in blank for no way to enter LVM passphrase at kimchi/virsh console
"plymouth" is installed by default. The latest ubuntu 16.04 daily with LVM encryption installed still can NOT start with normal boot for user input (passphrase) is not seen processed at the dark screen. However, I may start it to the normal multiple-user login if boot the system with recovery mode first. The passphrase input goes fine for recovery mode, and the normal boot does not ask for passphrase again. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1503826 Title: Boot hangs in blank for no way to enter LVM passphrase at kimchi/virsh console To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cryptsetup/+bug/1503826/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1504127] Re: lsb_release throws exception if stdout is closed
Steve, thank you very much for chasing the bug down to lsb_release. There is still no change that this exception occurs only on Ubuntu. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1504127 Title: lsb_release throws exception if stdout is closed To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lsb/+bug/1504127/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
Hi Mathieu, Thank you for your review to the detail. I now upload PMUbuntu files with a few minor changes regarding file mode & gzip -n that you suggested. The crontab message is normal for an uninitialized spool crontab file of root. PMUbuntu's cron entry is required to be created at /etc/cron.*, so our installation scripts need to ensure PM cron entry does not exist in spool/crontab, and delete it if found. If someone already has other entries in root's crontab, then there will be no error from crontab querying, and the scripts can continue to do whatever needed (likely nothing on Ubuntu if nobody installed PMUbuntu and adjusted the settings before). We still need /usr/sbin/config.PMLnx until Ubuntu can fully handle /opt. By now, the support of /opt is partially broken for all Ubuntu releases. For example, with default, root profile does not contain either /opt/man for manpage search, or /opt/(s)bin for executable search ($PATH). Maintainer scripts are also necessary for now. There are some flexibilities provided by PMUbuntu that the hard-coded package installers (dpkg/rpm) can not manipulate, such as directory layout selection and crontab/configuration rollback. ** Attachment added: "Enhanced PMLinux tar files and their result from dpkg-buildpackage" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+attachment/4524257/+files/ibmpmlinux_3.2.0-2_20151120.tar -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
Recent PMUbuntu tar file contains a few enhancements in symbol links repair up to today (2015-10-27). ** Attachment added: "Enhanced PMLinux tar files and their result from dpkg-buildpackage" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+attachment/4507007/+files/ibmpmlinux_3.2.0-1.tar_20151027 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
Hi Mathieu,
Thank you for your quick review and response. I am uploading the new tar
file, with the following answers to your comments:
- Version for Ubuntu should be -0ubuntu1 rather than -1.
The '1' in the PMLinux version "3.2.0-1" is an initial build serial
number. PMLinux product is for all IBM-specific Linux platforms, some of
them dislike the build number starts from '0', nor suggest a long
repeated subfix (such as "-0ubuntu1") in their versioning. In fact, even
on Ubuntu, I only see half of deb packages having "ubuntu" in their
version strings.
- compat file should contain "9", not "5".
Changed as suggested, although we are unwilling to tight any
limitations.
- for debian/control, please use the following line in place of the Depends:
line for ibmpmlinux:
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, dialog (>= 0.8), bash (>= 3.0), ${misc:Depends}
Changed as suggested.
- no need for preinst or postrm. Running verify or uninstall in
postinst/prerm is most likely wrong.
That's the style converted into deb from rpm.
It could have problem only when PMLinux is kicked in before its dependencies
in system installation, which is unlikely for a leaf package.
Sharing common programs is a good thing, so is what we do here to eliminate
multiple copies existing in installation/upgrade and daily maintenance programs.
- no application should change crontab for the root user by editing the
file. If anything, it should instead ship a file in the right
directories in /etc/cron.d
Again, PMLinux is compatible for all Linux variants. It has diverse
options & features for users to choose. That program branches to change
crontab will not be reached on Ubuntu by default.
- rather than doing symlinks in postinst/prerm; the links should be
created using dh_links, a file debian/links will have to simply contain
the source and destination for the symlinks to create.
Again, that's rpm style converted into deb. It's just a way of self integrity
to eliminate any special dependencies on an installation environment.
For deb, PMLinux package already contains the major symlinks in the files
list, which can then be created by dpkg in installtion, and postinst is just to
verify if dpkg or rpm does it right.
- please use debian/install containing the following, rather than copying files
in debian/rules:
opt
etc
usr/share/man opt/
Added debian/install with the above content, except " opt/" (which
will ruin the man page feature under current Ubuntu releases, because
they still do not support (add /opt/man in searching paths) any files in
/opt/man/*)
- you don't need file copies, creating directories or any such thing using
override_dh_auto_build in debian/rules; instead, you can use the following:
override_dh_install:
mkdir $(CURDIR)/debian/tmp
tar -xpzf $(pkg_tgz) -C $(CURDIR)/debian/tmp
dh_install
Yes, optimized as you suggested.
- It will be easiest for you to get the package name and version like this:
package := $(shell dpkg-parsechangelog -S Source)
version := $(shell dpkg-parsechangelog -S Version | sed -e 's/-.*//')
Note that here I pick just what goes in front of the - for the version number.
No. dpkg-parsechangelog does not support "-S" option in Ubuntu 14.03
- please remove the line "override_dh_shlibdeps:" in debian/rules; this
will fill in ${shlibs:Depends} for you automatically with the right
version of libc.
Done as suggested.
- also, I suppose the PMLinux.8 manpage should be decompressed and let
dh_installman deal with it in debian/rules, to get rid of this lintian warning:
W: ibmpmlinux: package-contains-timestamped-gzip opt/man/man8/PMLinux.8.gz
This warning is not real but a lintian bug. Please see
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762105.
Nothing looks wrong for gzipping PMLinux-deb.manual. Decompressing is not an
option because it makes a simple thing complicated and is merely to satisfy
lintian's unimportant hobby.
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #762105
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762105
** Attachment added: "Updated PMLinux tar files and their result from
dpkg-buildpackage"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+attachment/4503535/+files/ibmpmlinux_3.2.0-1.tar
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092
Title:
[needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
Hi Mathieu, Thank you very much. Please review our new build ibmpmlinux_3.2.0-1.tar in the attachment which contains: -rw-r--r-- root/root 19460 2015-10-22 11:39 ibmpmlinux_3.2.0-1.debian.tar.xz -rw-r--r-- root/root523655 2015-10-22 11:39 ibmpmlinux_3.2.0.orig.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- root/root390764 2015-10-22 11:39 ibmpmlinux_3.2.0-1_ppc64el.deb for PMLinux Version 3.2.0-1 with all the necessary FHS compliance items implemented, as described in PMLinux compliance schedule.png in my note on 2015-10-13. If possible, we still hope to see PMLinux package available in Ubuntu 15.10 archive. ** Attachment added: "PMLinux tar files and their result from dpkg-buildpackage" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+attachment/4502520/+files/ibmpmlinux_3.2.0-1.tar -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
Hi Mathieu, The schedule for Ubuntu 15.10 to release is running out. Here we PMLinux team are wondering if there is time left for our package inclusion in Ubuntu 15.10 Archive repository? If time allows, we still want to submit a PMLinux update for review next week, with the major changes for FHS compliance included (detail enclosed in attachment), while leaving optional service/job enhancement for next Ubuntu release ** Attachment added: "PMLinux compliance schedule.png" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+attachment/4493749/+files/PMLinux%20compliance%20schedule.png -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1504127] Re: grep -q gets broken pipe message with multiple expressions
** Package changed: ubuntu => bash (Ubuntu) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1504127 Title: grep -q gets broken pipe message with multiple expressions To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bash/+bug/1504127/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
Hi Mathieu, Thank you very much for your hours in the review. It sounds you almost get to the bottom of PMUbuntu. > - ship a sysv init script in /etc/init.d/ (which should work both for 15.10 and all the way to 14.04) This means we need to modify PMUbuntu to be a service (or job in upstart term). It's fine but will take some time. > - ship all files in their paths under /opt/ibm/pm ... We will follow the requests that you mentioned here, but not necessary to replace every "/var/perf/pm" with PMUbuntu's new home because we still try to maintain PM programs good for all Linux variants. > We also don't appear to need the preinst, prerm, postrm files; That those scriptlets are installed to /debian is not what we expect at all. The scripts are for package install/upgrade/uninstall moments only and supposed to be stored in apt/dpkg internal database. > since running verify.PMLnx or uninstall.PMLnx cause incompatible paths to be added on the filesystem, or crontab to be changed, which aren't allowable as per the packaging policy. If we decide to move home for PMUbuntu, then there will be no incompatible paths created by the final .PMLnx programs. PM item in crontab will also be relocated into /etc/cron.* as per your request. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
> Why should it be a blocker now that we are asking for ibmpmlinux to be installed to /opt instead? PMLinux has only one menu command for all of the user interfaces, "/var/perf/pm/config.PMLnx", which has a symbol link at /usr/sbin/config.PMLnx for root working well without $PATH setting. Now, as per Mathieu's request "putting *everything* under /opt" " to fulfill FHS standard, we have to move that public link into /opt/sbin, which will ruin the interface access, so does PMLinux man help if we also relocate PMLinux.8.gz from /usr/share/man to /opt/man. > Isn't it preferrable to have this software in the partner archive, with or > without /opt/bin path integration, than to not have it in the archive? Because Ubuntu is not ready for basic /opt support, what I hope is Ubuntu team still allows PMLinux continue to use /usr/sbin and /usr/share/man. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
Thank you very much, Steve. > ... but lintian does not support analyzing such a package using the appropriate rules. Then, Ubuntu community should not reject a package destined for /opt, based on lintian's analysis output until that tool is fixed to comply with all FHS specifications. > Are there any technical blockers to placing the package's contents in > /opt/ibm/pm, with symlinks to /etc/opt/ibm/pm and /var/opt/ibm/pm > for the writable parts? Yes, but only Ubuntu system (iso) is the blocker. Administrator (root) can NOT run (& man) commands in /opt/(s)bin (& /opt/man) without the path because /opt/(s)bin are not included in $PATH by default when they exist. This is another Ubuntu bug (in user profile initialization) for unconditional enforcement of the FHS standard while the system is actually not ready for. Note: 1) As I tested, SuSE has supported /opt/(s)bin in $PATH if the directories exist, at least since sles10; Fedora/Red Hat/Ubuntu are not yet; 2) "man" will work fine because it was designed in the configuration to look into /opt/man once /opt/(s)bin appear in $PATH. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
>> Q: "Would it be possible to recompile just to replace /var/perf/pm with >> /opt/ibm/pm? " >> A: Although technically possible, it might raise questions on the viability >> of PM-Ubuntu project: >>1) For a FHS-compliant system, it is supposed to store "static" things >> only in /opt which may then be mounted for read only; > If this is truly an issue for you ... No, I don't mind at all. It is merely an issue for FHS which requires that only static stuff may be stored in /opt. > storing files in the proper paths in /usr/lib, and keeping just the very few > binaries > that are expected to ever be run by users in /usr/bin, is quite acceptable The thing is, IBM has PMLinux, ESA(Electronic Service Agent), RSCT(Reliable Scalable Cluster Technology) ... As I knew: ESA's traditional home is at /opt/ibm/esa/, and RSCT team has been struggling to move away from /usr/sbin/rsct/ for FHS compliance on Ubuntu. I hope RSCT's home to be decided at /opt/ibm/rsct/, then many IBM optional packages may stay closely. > The only thing that is being objected to is the use of paths in /var/perf; > which isn't FHS-compliant. > As I've expressed before, it is a requirement for packages in the archive to > follow Debian and Ubuntu packaging policies. That is fine and we shall comply with. What we keep asking is only to reserve that old address as a relocation sign for some moments. >> 2) There will be awful consequences to move home for PM (for IBM i, AIX, >> Linux, KVM ...) after we released the product more than a decade. > Why? Worry of big trouble in cross-platform customer support > On the contrary, this is why I am asking whether you can recompile these > binaries. > To know where to find their files, these programs must have it hard-coded > somewhere. This means this value can be changed. Technically, we just need to add an extra path in the list for configuration search. This is not a big deal in code/document revision. The major issue remains in cross-platform technical support. > I thought I had mentioned it in the previous comment, but maybe I forgot: > there's an additional issue > with keeping manual pages in /usr/share/man if the rest is shipped in /opt. > Packages shipping things > in /opt should ship *everything* in /opt, not pick and choose. This "everything in" condition in FHS standard is certainly ridiculous: First of all, Ubuntu itself has not yet complied with it: "man" does not look into /opt/man/ with current /etc/manpath.config, while /opt/bin/ is not included in $PATH by default. Secondly, we have evidences from PMLinux to feel it bad: 1) when we have intimate files (like .cfg & .help) and naturally want to keep them at local, FHS forces to separate them far away; 2) when we cooperatively distribute something (like PMUbuntu.8.gz) to a place acknowledged for system wide utilities (such as "man"), FHS still says no and we shall have to move them back to private. > While I agree I've given you both options, it seems as though with all the > coming data, it is likely > best to ship ibmpmlinux files in proper /usr tree instead, such as in the > initial packaging I provided > for review in the bug (which was still affected by the binaries' requirement > for arbitrary paths). There are some problems: 1) PMLinux is NOT a lib, and looks weird to exist in /usr/lib; 2) IBM ESA has been at /opt/ibm/esa/. It's good for PMLinux to be together with ESA who, among other things, services PMLinux's data transmission to IBM. By the way, have you found why lintian complained PMLinux at /opt/ibm/pm/ ? (I sent you the tar balls on Sep 17 by email) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
Thank you Mathieu. Q: "Would it be possible to recompile just to replace /var/perf/pm with /opt/ibm/pm? " A: Although technically possible, it might raise questions on the viability of PM-Ubuntu project: 1) For a FHS-compliant system, it is supposed to store "static" things only in /opt which may then be mounted for read only; 2) There will be awful consequences to move home for PM (for IBM i, AIX, Linux, KVM ...) after we released the product more than a decade. Q: "This way we could have a PMLinux.cfg in a reasonable location and use it to guide binaries ..." A: Impossible. Program always runs first before configuration takes effect. It's the location of binaries that matters and guides where to find the configuration file, then knows where to store data and where to locate other things (such as sub-programs, text documents, temporary locks/buffers etc.). Q: "or have the binaries 'just work' without any config file present?" A: Yes, PM can works well with .cfg file absent. In this circumstance, PM must run in default patterns. However, if config file does not exist, there is no way to control PM behaves differently (off the defaults), particularly, under the specific directories layout on Ubuntu. Here I update the proposal (version 1.1, right sheet in the attachment) for your review for PM-Ubuntu with the files of static in /opt/ibm/pm and of dynamic in /var/opt/ibm/pm, except the manual's (static) still in the traditional place /usr/share/man. ** Attachment added: "PMLinux Dirs-Files layout with of static in /opt/ibm/pm/ and variable in /var/opt/ibm/pm/" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+attachment/4472742/+files/PMUbuntu%20opt-var%20proposal.png -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
"should changing PM_HOME to point to the new directory instead of /var/perf/pm work instead of creating symlinks?" No, it won't work. PMLinux.cfg will not take effect because it is now separated from PMLinux binaries, and NOT at default searching locations. The solution is either one below: 1) Create some symbol links to fully regain the original layout So that we still run programs in /var/perf/pm/, but it becomes running them in /opt/ibm/pm/, while /opt/ibm/pm/bin/programs reading PMLinux.cfg in /opt/ibm/pm/config/ becomes finding it in /etc/opt/ibm/ 2) Reprogram PMLinux with distributed FHS layout Change PMLinux programs to find PMLinux in /etc/ibm/pm/ Then also need to correct documents to reflect the new locations. Of course, I prefer 1), and only if the original implementation is not an option. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
Thanks Mathieu. There are only two "public" symbol links in controversy: 1) /var/adm/perfmgr -> /var/perf/pm/ HMC/FSM/ESA services use it to find PMLinux data file for transmission. 2) /var/perf/pm -> /opt/ibm/pm/ PMLinux refers it to regain original files layout (virtual ) against Ubuntu FHS enforcement. Other three links involved are local (or "private"), and product owner should have flexibility to do so: /opt/ibm/pm/tmp -> /var/opt/ibm/pm/tmp/ /opt/ibm/pm/daily -> /var/opt/ibm/pm/daily/ /opt/ibm/pm/config -> /etc/opt/ibm/pm/ As you can see here, FHS compliance only has negative impact on PMLinux and makes simple files layout complicated. There is no evident advantage for installing PMLinux under /opt/ibm/pm than in /var/perf/pm. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
Hi Mathieu, Thank you a lot for your time spent in reviewing and rearranging PMLinux's dirs/files layout. Actually, Breno, Erwan and I etc. already discussed about FHS (FileSystem Hierarchy Standard) enforcement several weeks ago. The right home for PMLinux seemed to be at /opt/ibm/pm/. Accordingly, I had ever created a PMLinux package based on that new home (see middle column in the attachment). However, that newly built PMLinux package did not pass lintian’s validation either, with almost as many non-compliance complaints as for PMLinux's original .deb. In other words, lintian did not really comply with the FHS standard for itself! Regarding your suggestion at a different location /usr/lib/ibmpmlinux/. I am afraid it might still not satisfy lintian because this path is also unknown to lintian. If that has no problem, I'd like to change to /usr/lib/ibm/pm/ for possible compatibility issues in case other IBM products may face the same frustration in future. Please review the detailed layout at 3rd column in the attachment. In order to make PMLinux work as before, a few symbol links need to be created by PMLinux installation scripts (see bottom part in the attachment). If the links, such as /var/perf/pm pointing to PMLinux's new home, are not allowed, then PMLinux requires lots of modifications to be adapted for new layouts. Personally, I still prefer PMLinux’s current dirs/files layout (see 1st column in the attachment). As I think, FHS’s distribution style is only good for the essential kernel/utilities of Linux system. It is overdone for Ubuntu to discipline any independent applications with FHS, because not every product acts/sits very close to core system, and mixing up their files with others makes simple things complicated. Instead, small tree layout (Windows style) has its tremendous conveniences. "Will PMLinux still work properly if we move all the binaries to /usr/lib/ibmpmlinux, for example?" Yes, but only if PMLinux (programs) can manage to locate PMLinux.cfg. PMLinux was designed to find the parameters file in this sequence: as specified by command line option, in subdirectory "config" under the program's parent directory, or in default directory "/var/perf/pm/config". If PMLinux.cfg not found (like sitting inside /etc without a link reference), PMLinux will run at /var/perf/pm with hard-coded default options. "Could we please have a new copy of the documentation with paths changed?" As commented above, if we are allowed to create a few symbol links to regain the original layout, then nothing in the documents needs correction. Otherwise, many codes & documents need to be changed and tested – There will be no quick answer in this tough circumstance. ** Attachment added: "PMLinux Dirs-Files layouts for PM home at /var/perf/pm, /opt/ibm/pm, or /usr/lib/ibm/pm" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+attachment/4466417/+files/PMLinux%20Dirs-Files%20Layouts.png -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
Hi Mathieu, As I just checked today, ibmPMLinux package was still NOT archived in Ubuntu 1510's daily builds (http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu- server/daily/current/wily-server-ppc64el.iso). Accordingly, I have not yet got a chance to test PMLinux package being installed from Ubuntu iso. The time seems running out of the schedule for PMLinux to join Ubuntu 1510. I am wondering how the acceptance procedure is going on? Please let me know once green light is given from the review. There will be new PMLinux tar balls with recent feature enhancement/bug fix for update. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
Mathieu, thank you very much for your response with an encouraging progress update. Please tell us the detailed time line (schedule) of Ubuntu 15.10. We may provide new up-to-date tar balls to be built in before the release. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
** Attachment added: 2 of 2 tar files to build PMubuntu package (origin) https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+attachment/4424885/+files/ibmpmlinux_3.1.0.orig.tar.gz -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1448092] Re: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
** Attachment added: 1 of 2 tar files to build PMubuntu package (origin) https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+attachment/4424884/+files/ibmpmlinux_3.1.0-2.debian.tar.xz -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
