Hi David,
I thinking about what you said, but I'm afraid it's blown my mind ...
Cheers,
Ste
On 10/21/2016 02:03 PM, David Crooks wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Chipping in from the side (but we are also thinking separately about this kind of thing) this feels like the CA distribution case, where you have a metapackage that is distributed every so often which contains like-numbered RPM packages. In this case it feels like having an approved-vo metapackage with a set of rpms, all of which are the same version, is the way to go. If you don’t want to install all the approved-vo rpms that’s fine, but making sure you’re up to date by checking the package version is efficient, and also similar to something else we already do.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> On 21/10/2016, 13:33, "Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes on behalf of Stephen Jones" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On 10/20/2016 07:22 PM, Marcus Ebert wrote:
> > I use them, but we do not support VOs that had recent changes. While
> > the initial setup and install worked fine and without any problems, I
> > can't comment right now on how it goes with updates. I'll let you know
> > about that once there have been changes to the VO-rpms that we support
> > in Edinburgh.
>
> Hi Marcus,
>
> If you use them, then I'd like your advice. There are two ways to manage
> the versioning.
>
> The way I have chosen is this: whenever ANY approved VO changes, all the
> VO RPMs get released with a new version stamp. The reason for this is
> both practical (it's easy to do) and technical. The technical reason is
> that the Approved VOs document now has a version number. And if any
> Approved VO changes, the document version is updated. Thus, if ALL of
> the RPMs on your site match the document number, then your site is up to
> date.
>
> The alternative would be: whenever an approved VO changes, only that VO
> RPM that has changed would get released with the new version stamp. The
> others would remain as they were. And the Approved VO Document gets the
> new version stamp. Thus to check if your site is up to date, you would
> have to check which VO supported (if any) at your site changed and make
> sure just its RPM is up to date. Sometimes, if none changed, your site
> would have RPMs where all their version numbers match a stale version of
> the document!
>
> So, it is harder to be sure you are up to date with the second scheme.
> But, with the first scheme, you will update "unnecessarily" (i.e. the
> contents of the RPM may be unchanged, but the version number will have
> changed and an update will occur if version=latest, in your puppet
> config). I consider the latter effect to be of negligible impact.
>
> So those are the options -
>
> a) shotgun solution, that causes more updates but which are negligible,
>
> or
>
> b) precise solution, that is harder to verify against and, perhaps,
> harder to understand.
>
> Which do you prefer? Or is there another option? (I can think of one,
> but I don't like it!)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ste
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Jones [log in to unmask]
> Grid System Administrator office: 220
> High Energy Physics Division tel (int): 43396
> Oliver Lodge Laboratory tel (ext): +44 (0)151 794 3396
> University of Liverpool http://www.liv.ac.uk/physics/hep/
>
>
--
Steve Jones [log in to unmask]
Grid System Administrator office: 220
High Energy Physics Division tel (int): 43396
Oliver Lodge Laboratory tel (ext): +44 (0)151 794 3396
University of Liverpool http://www.liv.ac.uk/physics/hep/
|