From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Mick Subject: Re: 0.55 init script Issue? Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:38:43 -0800 Message-ID: <50C261E3.4000007@inktank.com> References: <50BF7314.2020809@gammacode.com> <50BFA354.7040308@inktank.com> <50BFABE5.1020904@ubuntu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-da0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:49380 "EHLO mail-da0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932126Ab2LGVir (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:38:47 -0500 Received: by mail-da0-f46.google.com with SMTP id p5so359909dak.19 for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:38:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil Cc: Gregory Farnum , James Page , Mike Dawson , "ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org" It did not delete the previously-installed /etc/init/ceph.conf; I'm guessing we need a postinstall fragment to do that fixup? On 12/06/2012 05:35 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > On Wed, 5 Dec 2012, Sage Weil wrote: >> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012, Gregory Farnum wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM, James Page wrote: >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> Hash: SHA256 >>>> >>>> On 05/12/12 19:41, Dan Mick wrote: >>>>> The story as best I know it is that we're trying to transition to >>>>> and use upstart where possible, but that the upstart config does >>>>> not (yet?) try to do what the init.d config did. That is, it >>>>> doesn't support options to the one script, but rather separates >>>>> daemons into separate services, and does not reach out to remote >>>>> machines to start daemons, etc. >>>>> >>>>> The intent is that init.d/ceph is left for non-Upstart distros, >>>>> AFAICT. >>>>> >>>>> Tv had some design notes here: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org/msg09314.html >>>>> >>>>> We need better documentation/rationale here at least. >>>> >>>> Maybe it might be better if the ceph init script and the ceph upstart >>>> configuration did not namespace clash; how about shifting the name of >>>> the ceph upstart configuration to ceph-all? >>> >>> Yeah, this or something very similar is definitely the correct >>> solution. Sage recently added the "ceph" upstart job, and we didn't >>> put it through sufficient verification prior to release in order to >>> notice this issue. Users who aren't using upstart (I expect that's all >>> of them) should just delete the job after running the package install. >>> We'll certainly sort this out prior to the next release; I'm not sure >>> if we want to roll a v0.55.1 right away or not. >> >> Let's push it to the testing branch, but make sure any other fixes are >> there before rolling a .1.. maybe tomorrow? > > I've pushed this to the testing branch. If someone wants to verify the > packages built at > > http://gitbuilder.ceph.com/ceph-deb-precise-x86_64-basic/ref/testing/ > > are fixed, that would be fabulous! > > sage > > >> Thanks! >> sage >> >> >>> -Greg >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >>> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >>