Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||early alpha release of 389-ds in official repos|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Brian LaMere <brianlamere>|
|Component:||389-ds||Assignee:||Rich Megginson <rmeggins>|
|Status:||CLOSED NEXTRELEASE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||13||CC:||dcantrell, nhosoi, nkinder, rmeggins|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2010-09-02 16:00:44 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Brian LaMere 2010-09-02 15:49:45 EDT
Description of problem: If someone does a "yum install 389-ds" right now, they will get a release that according to richm (of 389-ds) "was an early alpha version that was only in testing and should not have been pushed to stable (not sure how that happened)" (post on 389-users). Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): I've been made aware that the "a1" indicates that it is the first alpha. Within the 389 tools, the following "a1" packages are in the current repos. 389-ds-base-1.2.6-0.1.a1.fc13 389-ds-base-selinux-1.2.6-0.1.a1.fc13 389-admin-1.1.11-0.1.a1.fc13 389-admin-selinux-1.1.11-0.1.a1.fc13 I recommend retagging or removing these packages, so that people who go to install 389 Directory Server won't have problems. I have 3 bug reports for issues I'm experiencing, which all may be because of the early-alpha code that shouldn't be in use. How reproducible: 100% (type "yum install 389-ds" and see what gets installed) Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2010-09-02 15:56:07 EDT
We do not remove packages from the released Everything tree. Assigning to 389-ds... they're planning on pushing a newer build, as I recall.
Comment 2 Rich Megginson 2010-09-02 16:00:44 EDT
I'm not sure what happened here - perhaps since 389-ds-base-1.2.6.a1 was in rawhide, it just automatically got included into F-13 at the time. Yes, the official final RTM version of 389-ds-base-1.2.6-1 is due to hit Stable any day now.
Comment 3 Brian LaMere 2010-09-02 16:29:00 EDT
since I have 3 bugs that might be because of the a1 code, and since I am using 389-ds in production (at a1) and am currently moving lots and lots of info in to it...is it possible to get an idea when "any day now" might be so I can schedule maintenance in advance for as soon after that as possible? Alternatively, if it is more likely to be 10-20 days instead of 1-4 days, should I consider moving to the latest RC for 1.2.6-1, or perhaps just going backward to an earlier version? I'm concerned about what bugs I may not have noticed yet, or data corruption of my directory caused by something in the a1 release I'm on.
Comment 4 Rich Megginson 2010-09-02 16:41:15 EDT
(In reply to comment #3) > since I have 3 bugs that might be because of the a1 code, and since I am using > 389-ds in production (at a1) and am currently moving lots and lots of info in > to it...is it possible to get an idea when "any day now" might be so I can > schedule maintenance in advance for as soon after that as possible? > > Alternatively, if it is more likely to be 10-20 days instead of 1-4 days, > should I consider moving to the latest RC for 1.2.6-1, or perhaps just going > backward to an earlier version? I'm concerned about what bugs I may not have > noticed yet, or data corruption of my directory caused by something in the a1 > release I'm on. Tomorrow, it will have been 7 days since I pushed 389-ds-base-1.2.6-1 to the Testing repos. At that time, as per Fedora policy, I will be able to request moving the package from Testing to Stable. Once I do that, it will take another 4-5 days for the package to be signed by Fedora Release Engineering, pushed to the Stable repo, and pushed to all of the mirrors. At that point, it will be Live.