debian-sf-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LDAP problem and Re: [Debian-sf-users] Upgrade / Downgrade sf and ot


From: Roland Mas
Subject: Re: LDAP problem and Re: [Debian-sf-users] Upgrade / Downgrade sf and other recomendations for ourproject
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 14:58:47 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-debian-linux-gnu)

Vicente Ruiz (2002-10-13 13:16:41 +0200) :

[...]

> I just had a problem with the LDAP installation and I fixed it with
> this modification (but I am not a LDAP or sf expert):

Thanks for the patch.  I'll test and (most probably) apply it.  I
cannot commit from home, but I'll probably commit to CVS tomorrow or
early next week.

[...]

> But if you migrate from 2.6.x to 2.6.y ┬┐do you keep your projects
> working?

  There is currently only one 2.6.x.  We call it 2.6 for simplicity,
but it is based on a CVS snapshot taken back when the upstream CVS was
accessible to the public, and the "official" version should be
"2.6.1pre4" (it's somewhere in the docs).  There seems to be
absolutely no plans at VA Linux / VA Software to release any further
versions to the public under a free license: although there was an
official promise to release a cleaned-up version, numbered 2.7, in
August, that never happened (but then again, they had also promised to
release 3.0 under the GPL in last year, and that never happened
either).  So I guess we can safely assume that there will be no 2.6.y
coming from VA :-(

  On the other hand, much in the same way as we provided an upgrade
path from 2.5 to 2.6 that keeps your data and migrates them to the new
database format, we will continue to provide automated upgrade paths
if the format changes again.

  As Christian said, though, the downgrade is rather difficult (and in
some cases impossible) to automate.  You should therefore think very
seriously and test 2.6 very thoroughly (and report the bugs you find,
of course ;-) before you switch your installation to 2.6, because if
you want to go back to 2.5, you won't be able to migrate your new data
back to the 2.5 format.  You can (and should) of course backup your
2.5 database before you switch to 2.6, so as not to have to start with
an empty database.

  Now to the good news: we are reasonably confident in our 2.5
package, because we (and others) have tested it a lot.  There should
be no big bugs in the 2.6 packages (if you don't try funny things like
multi-host installation -- that doesn't work yet), we just lack
testers and reports from them before we can say to the world that it
is stable.

Roland.
-- 
Roland Mas

/* Halley */ (Halley's comment.)




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]