Bug #2670
closedThe intial promises are not up to date
Added by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago. Updated over 12 years ago.
Description
It seems that the initial promises are not up to date: neither root nor nodes ones.
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
This issue is an obstacle to the merge of initial promises: #2669
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
- % Done changed from 0 to 30
root initial promises for cfengine-community are now up to date
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
- Target version changed from 2.3.9 to 2.4.0~beta3
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
The commits were wrongly applied to branch 2.3
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
- Status changed from New to In progress
What should be initial promises for the nodes in common ?
Here are the
# ls -1 /var/rudder/cfengine-community/inputs/common/1.0/ cfengine_stdlib.cf cf-served.cf e2s_activation.cf internal_security.cf process_matching.cf rudder_lib.cf site.cf update.cf
There are the files from the server:
# ls -1 /var/cfengine/masterfiles/common/1.0/ cfengine_stdlib.cf core-lib.cf library.cf process_matching.cf site.cf update.cf
I suppose that the files mandatory are:
- cfengine_stdlib.cf
- process_matching.cf
- rudder_lib.cf
- site.cf
- update.cf
But what's about cf-served.cf ?
Updated by Jonathan CLARKE over 12 years ago
Nicolas PERRON wrote:
What should be initial promises for the nodes in common ?
Here are the
[...]There are the files from the server:
[...]I suppose that the files mandatory are:
- cfengine_stdlib.cf
- process_matching.cf
- rudder_lib.cf
- site.cf
- update.cf
Be careful, the difference is not just the files presence, but also their contents.
But what's about cf-served.cf ?
I think we decided to not run a server on the nodes until they were accepted, but I'm not sure. In fact, I'm not sure there's any point running a server on the nodes at all, at the moment...
Updated by Jonathan CLARKE over 12 years ago
Looking at commit 0c110ab2, I like the change for the definition of the root_server and policy_server classes, but I don't understand why you changed several "any" into "policy_server" in site.cf (the ones in cf-served.cf make sense). Could you explain please?
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
Jonathan CLARKE wrote:
Looking at commit 0c110ab2, I like the change for the definition of the root_server and policy_server classes, but I don't understand why you changed several "any" into "policy_server" in site.cf (the ones in cf-served.cf make sense). Could you explain please?
In the light of your comment, it appears to be an error. I thought the definitions about /var/rudder/share/${uuid}/promises/shares and /opr/rudder as peculiar to server. But I was wrong, I'll fix it immediately.
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
- % Done changed from 30 to 80
Except the nova part, we have upgraded all the initial promises.
Updated by Jonathan CLARKE over 12 years ago
I think this task is finished, no?
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
Jonathan CLARKE wrote:
I think this task is finished, no?
As I said just above, the nova part is not up to date. So we can't consider this task totally done.
Updated by Jonathan CLARKE over 12 years ago
Nicolas PERRON wrote:
Jonathan CLARKE wrote:
I think this task is finished, no?
As I said just above, the nova part is not up to date. So we can't consider this task totally done.
Please create a separate ticket for that, in the Normation internal bugtracker (for the Windows plugin) and close this one. I don't want half-done tasks hanging around cluttering up our bugtracker.
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
- % Done changed from 80 to 100
Jonathan CLARKE wrote:
Nicolas PERRON wrote:
Jonathan CLARKE wrote:
I think this task is finished, no?
As I said just above, the nova part is not up to date. So we can't consider this task totally done.
Please create a separate ticket for that, in the Normation internal bugtracker (for the Windows plugin) and close this one. I don't want half-done tasks hanging around cluttering up our bugtracker.
Ok, it's done. We can consider this issue as ended.
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
- Status changed from In progress to Pending technical review
Updated by Jonathan CLARKE over 12 years ago
All commits that I didn't make look good to me. Nicolas, can you review my commits please?
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
- your commit inserted a .swp file
- there was a mistake in the bundle sequence which inserted two commas. But I fixed it later.
Updated by Jonathan CLARKE over 12 years ago
- Status changed from Pending technical review to Released
Thanks Nicolas