On 8/22/06, Daniel Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Christian Haugan Toldnes wrote: > > > Since Viper & tsl-initrd use evms to activate the evms-specific block > > devices and Anaconda & mkinitrd doesn't, you will need to change your > > raid system completely, using different block devices, or patch mkinitrd > > to handle both kind of systems. The latter is the correct way of fixing > > this bug, since it's supposed to be upgradeable from 3.0. > > This is exactly the point. To quote from a mail coming (officially) > from @trustix.org on this very list: > > "technically swup should work without any problems, as simple upgrading to > 3.0.5 was considered as part of this release."
Yup, i still do beleive that everything should be upgradable from 3.0 to 3.0.5. and swup does let upgrade without much issues*. (never did i mention it would be perfect to upgrade to a 3.0.5 BETA though. ) Hell, is there no QA anymore? Software-raid isnt so unheared of in the > outside world (even though i personally dont like it), so this is one > thing you have to test before a public beta. And yes, i know what i'm > talking about, having worked as a member of cloud-dev mainly testing > and checking for compatibility, and also having worked as a developer > and responsible for QA for a certain linux based firewall solution. I guess your times and these times are different in terms of QA. With the very limited resources, every hook and corner of tesing is not possble, Or hell i would have been the happiest guy alive (exaggerated!). For your sake, this is still a Beta (if Beta still means 'not perfect' in lay man terms) , and i understand we had over looked the RAID partitions created by evms over anaconda based software RAID. Yes they are different, and so does the initrd need to be modified to get a working boot on evms based setup. I should make changes in tsl-fixboot.sh for that purpose, and make a new initrd depending on whether the system partitions are evms based or not. BTW, glad to know about you having worked as one of the TSL guys ;) > > Well, its always the same. "geez we dont need you expensive high-headed > geeks, we have those guys from $insertyourfavoritecheapcountryhere, they > can do the same work for half the money and are still happy about it!" True! I am one of them. :P > > And with yum there is no need (sorry Mr. C. :-)) for swup. > > > Ohh, and no.. TSL didn't really need a new installer, but needed > > something to make it different from the other distributions. Well.. We > > still have 'secure' in the middle of the distribution name, so that must > > mean the distribution is more secure than the distributions that > doesn't. :D > > Well, TSL is not very secure anymore. Or better said: not more or less > secure than most of the other distros out there. If someone from Comodo > or Trustix want to say otherwise, please, be my guest :-) I'm looking > forward to it. Yea, I guess you can begin. I/We would really love to hear more about it. We could all learn something from this. And yea..I really needed to spill out something considering all the trashing being given out here, free of cost. All taken constructively though. Thanks Again. Aristo _______________________________________________ tsl-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.trustix.org/mailman/listinfo/tsl-discuss
