On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:40:56PM -0400, Bob Doolittle wrote:
> Gary Mills wrote:
> >I did a Live Upgrade on a Sun Ray server running Solaris 10 8/07 to
> >bring it up to Solaris 10 5/08. This was an X4100 with Sun Ray server
> >4.0.
> >I'm concerned that Sun Ray server software is not well integrated with
> >the Solaris package and patch system, so that Live Upgrade doesn't
> >work in a more reliable manner. Manual changes should only be
> >necessary where the sysadmin has changed configuration files, not
> >where Sun-supplied software has done it. Can this situation be
> >improved?
> In fact, the /usr/dt/config/X* file warnings are "red herrings". If you
> had just booted the ABE you would have found that these files are
> instrumented properly during SRSS startup and required no manual
> intervention on your part. In order to protect against patches and user
> modifications, a number of system files are instrumented by SRSS on
> every software restart, using "utrepair" and the templates stored in
> /opt/SUNWut/lib/prototype (it's interesting that the others didn't show
> up in warnings - they must not have been impacted by this particular
> upgrade). So the only real issue here seems to be
> /usr/dt/config/sessionetc. This file is updated by utadm. We'll need
> to look into this further.
Can I run `utadm -R /a' to update it in advance? I could do that
for Jumpstart installs too. I do find the automatic update of those
system files at boot time a bit annoying. It interferes with our
configuration management system, for one thing. I have to identify
all of the changed files and copy them back to that system.
The other point is that we don't actually use the /usr/dt/config/X*
files, as we have equivalents in /etc/dt/config with our local
modifications included. I have to include the Sun Ray modifications
there as well. /usr/dt/config/sessionetc is an exception, as we don't
need local mods for that one.
> I suspect that these types of warnings are going to be generated for any
> layered product that updates system files, since by its nature
> live_upgrade can't know about layered products, and the onus is upon
> layered products to work properly with upgrades, not visa-versa. SRSS
> does the right thing wrt /usr/dt/config/X{reset,setup,startup} but our
> sessionetc file handling looks like a bug to me at this point. There's
> probably also a SRSS documentation bug since I don't think we mention
> that these warnings can be disregarded anywhere today.
Having different parties apply their own changes to configuration
files, particularly shell scripts, is both dangerous and confusing.
I wonder if there's a better way to handle this situation?
--
-Gary Mills- -Unix Support- -U of M Academic Computing and Networking-
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
