Steve Lawrence wrote:
> I assume you are targeting this change for s10.


> The single-user milestone is intended to mimic the traditional unix
> run-level 1 (S?)

Nit:  Run level 1 is slightly different from S.

> This is typically where an admin would run stuff like
> fsck (on filesystems that are not yet mounted).

It is also where we tell people to install many patches that touch key 
parts of the system.  Zones and patching collided to break that use 
case, by making it (potentially) necessary to mount secondary file 
systems in order to apply patches.

> I don't think it is ok
> to change this behavior in a patch.

Something's got to give.

> I'm not sure I understand all the details of the problem you are trying
> to solve.  For example, I thought it was desired that the "patch service"
> run during a boot to "all", but then I saw following mail stating that
> the "patch service" should not run in this case, and something about the
> user explicitly booting to single user.  I don't think I know what the
> use cases are.

There's been a lot of variations flying around and it's tough to keep 
them all straight.

One key incorrect assumption that we (the patch automation teams) had 
been making was that we could "catch" system startup at the right point 
and do our work, as was possible in pre-SMF systems.  That would suggest 
having a patch service that ran on the way to "all".  However, on an SMF 
system that's not a valid assumption:  if the target is "all", services 
might be started at any point, including before milestone/single-user, 
if their dependencies are met.

It now appears clear that we must limit the system to some appropriate 
milestone, to limit the services that are started.

> You may want to draft a brief ARC fastrack describing the desired behavior(s),
> and the issues, and perhaps proposed solutions.  Getting it all on one page
> will facilitate a solution.

I agree that an ARC case is needed, if only to formally record the 
agreed-upon solution.  However, since we don't yet have a complete 
solution to propose, I think it's premature at the moment.

Getting it all on one page would, I agree, be helpful.

(Is there an externally-visible wiki where such a writeup could be 
posted and maintained?)


The list of use cases is really pretty simple:

1)  Administrator has in hand a patch that says "install in single user 
mode".  What does this administrator do?  The answer seems self-evident: 
  take the system to single-user mode (either by booting the system in 
single-user mode using boot -s or boot -m milestone/single-user, or 
dropping the system to single-user mode using "init s" or "svcadm 
milestone milestone/single-user") and install the patch using patchadd.

2)  An automated tool has in hand a patch that says "install in single 
user mode".  What does it do?

It is when we start to look at solutions that the problem becomes more 
zones-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to