On 10/8/07, Stephen Hahn <sch at sun.com> wrote:
> * Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> [2007-10-08 20:43]:
> > (There are some annoyances with the svccfg archive output.
> > Identical systems - or even the same system at different times -
> > create different output, so you need to eyeball any differences
> > to see if they're significant.)
>
> Let's improve archive (or introduce archive --strict) to not do that:
> do you have some diffs of this kind that you could share?
The differences I've stumbled across (based on S10U3):
There seems to be an md5 checksum for the manifests. Eg.
<property_group name='var_svc_manifest_system_console-login_xml'
type='framework'>
<propval name='md5sum' type='opaque'
value='86cf97cf476e3e2c66b04d87ce7db740'/>
</property_group>
Now, the checksum seems to incorporate both file contents
and the timestamp. Different timestamps generate different
checksums, even if the file content is the same. So you have
to go check.
(svc:/network/rpc-100235_1/rpc_ticotsord:default shows this as well.)
The other thing is that these checksums only seem to exist for
manifests that were present at boot. This means that the result
of svccfg archive changes after a reboot, even though the
configuration didn't change (assuming that the manifest had
been imported before reboot). And identically configured systems
look different as a result if some have been rebooted and others
haven't.
(As I recall the manifests are scanned at boot to see if any need
importing. Is mfstscan the correct way to check for discrepancies
between the current state and the state after next boot?)
The general concept is pretty close, it's just a couple of minor
nits like this that prevent it from being fully automated.
--
-Peter Tribble
http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
