Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of rohit.yadav@citrix.com
 designates 203.166.19.134 as permitted sender)
From: Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@citrix.com>
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
	<cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 00:47:52 +0530
Subject: RE: [VOTE] how to upgrade CloudStack from 3.0.x to 4.0
Thread-Topic: [VOTE] how to upgrade CloudStack from 3.0.x to 4.0
Thread-Index: Ac2jLWkzil2K65J5Si6HeHcMCz8QsAAALSYX
Message-ID: 
 <0BCCCE152323764BB7FD6AE6D7A1D906FE11C32D73@BANPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
References: 
 <C66C814C1ABFA8449FF65CB44953A8B4012CBB65BD9A@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
 <CAKprHVZV3QBj5zJ6BOiMN5oS8naj2TnZfJ8MaouC7VHkEez-PQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <C66C814C1ABFA8449FF65CB44953A8B4012CBB65BD9B@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
 <C66C814C1ABFA8449FF65CB44953A8B4012CBB65BD9F@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>,<CAKprHVZgNkyYboCqNxd3qogzxTTFEVLbY9ZzR0m4VbrC87-1rg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKprHVZgNkyYboCqNxd3qogzxTTFEVLbY9ZzR0m4VbrC87-1rg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

+1 David. That would be great!
I too dislike the ugly hack.
=20
Thanks.
________________________________________
From: David Nalley [david@gnsa.us]
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2012 12:41 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] how to upgrade CloudStack from 3.0.x to 4.0

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 11:20 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] how to upgrade CloudStack from 3.0.x to 4.0
>>
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
>> > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 11:05 AM
>> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] how to upgrade CloudStack from 3.0.x to 4.0
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > Refer to bug CLOUDSTACK-248, the root cause is :
>> > > we change cloud-agent-scripts to cloud-scripts, and change the
>> > installation path from /usr/lib64/cloud/agent to
>> > /usr/lib64/cloud/common.
>> > > But in the source code, there are some other places still use
>> > /usr/lib64/cloud/agent. For backward compatibility, we link
>> > /usr/lib64/cloud/common to /usr/lib64/cloud/agent during the cloud-
>> > scripts installation.
>> > > It works for a fresh 4.0 installation, but doesn't work for upgrade:
>> > > During the upgrade, cloud-scripts will be installed first, then
>> link
>> > from /usr/lib64/cloud/common to /usr/lib64/cloud/agent will be
>> created.
>> > Then cloud-agent-scripts will be uninstalled automatically, thus
>> > /usr/lib64/cloud/agent will be removed. When mgt server starts, it
>> > complains can't find scripts under /usr/lib64/cloud/agent.
>> > >
>> > > Rohit fixes this issue by manually force upgrade cloud-scripts
>> after
>> > the upgrade process, which will install /usr/lib64/cloud/common and
>> > create the link between /usr/lib64/cloud/common and
>> > /usr/lib64/cloud/agent.
>> > >
>> > > Actually we can put this extra installation process
>> into ./install.sh,
>> > so it will become transparent for end users.
>> > > Will it be reasonable/acceptable for the community?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Does using Provides: cloud-agent-scripts in the scripts sections of
>> > the spec file mean that this would be upgraded rather than install
>> > then remove that currently happens?
>>
>> If " Provides: cloud-agent-scripts " just upgrade, not remove, then we
>> don't need the extra manually process any more.
>> Testing the latest build with Rohit's patch.
>
> Tested, clouda-agent-scripts still gets removed. I added a new fix on 4.0=
 branch, which will automatically install cloud-scripts.
>

And if they install via yum repo? I'll take this bug and get it fixed.

--David