X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C7A3BF.E5E2CDED@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Thu, 31 May 2007 13:11:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: review cw_install changes
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:11:39 -0700
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E02215807@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070530175104.63c624b5@ripper.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: review cw_install changes
Thread-Index: AcejHcSDvQn2SQuiRQiuqqRJ8wEHZAAldASA
From: "Larry Scheer" <larry.scheer@onstor.com>
To: "Andy Sharp" <andy.sharp@onstor.com>

> tar does a certain amount of verification.  is that not good enough
for
> you?  it's good enough for me.  there was no specification as to the
> thoroughness of the verification.  i rest my case.

> i could do something like this:

> tar xf tarball 2>tarerrors
> if [ -s tarerrors ] ; then
>    echo gaaaaaa
> fi

Or how about:

tar xf tarball 2>tarerrors
if [ -s tarerrors ] ; then
   echo "Gaaaack\! System fornication complete; time for a cigarette and
a beer."
else
   echo "Verification completed successfully. Have a nice day"
fi

Just seeing if I can make you laugh....

But, seriously...
It will be QA or CS who will squawk about the missing verification phase
since it is in the specification. I am just saying be prepared for some
blow-back once it is in QA. If Sandrine is doing the QA work, she _will_
be looking for some form of verification success message.=20

> why don't i open a bug for all these changes and put the changes for
> verify_install.sh towards the bugs you sent me?

According to the notes in the defect and email I received from Raj,
those defects were waiting for the stand-alone install.

Opening a new defect for the silent reboots and listing the changes to
verify_install.sh as the "fix" seems more direct. I spoke to Brian  De
Forest and he doesn't have any problems with checking in the fix with or
without a defect. Having a defect for this specific issue may help
getting it in 2.2.3.

Later

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Sharp=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:51 PM
To: Larry Scheer
Subject: Re: review cw_install changes

On Wed, 30 May 2007 17:06:59 -0700 "Larry Scheer"
<larry.scheer@onstor.com> wrote:

> Makefile comments:
> Write cw_install.sh to $(PATH_TO_RELEASE)/etc .vs Tools. Don't pollute
> source trees with derived objects. Then you don't need the move.

fixed

> Line 562: Looking at how N_VERS is used in cw_install, you should use
> the make macro $(VER) which is the contents of nfx-tree/Tools/version.
> It doesn't have the 'b' character appended to it. So it will just be
> 3.0.0.0 or 2.2.3.0, etc. The version file in the release directory
> has a character 'b' appended to it to differentiate between bobcat and
> cheetah. (Cheetah's version file does not have the 'b'. I have no idea
> what it will be for cougar and bobcat linux.

fixed

> Cw_install.in comments:
> Line 106: hw_initials for Bobcat Linux will most likely be 'BL'

fixed.  buttload.  should be BC  gaaaah

> Line: 582: Missing preposition before "most cases." Perhaps is should
> be "in most cases." Or "for most cases."  (Whatever is your
> preferences (or most gooder English.)

ficked

> Line 596-597: Maybe it should say: "After a successful upgrade, your
> system will boot the software and you will have to log in again."
> Or it could be "When efficacious upgradation consummated system reboot
> will occur, necessitating login procedures upon completion of init
> level two."

uh

> Line 640: htype=3D`hw_initials` I think you meant =
hwtype=3D`hw_initials`
> because htype is unused.

fixed

> Lines 644-653: Unless you change the Makefile as mentioned above you
> can't use $N_VERS unmodified for anything but Cheetah builds. For
> bobcat (BSD) N_VERS would be set to 3.0.0.0b which breaks all of your
> default URLs.

I said fixed already

> The functional specification for the CW installation procedure has a
> requirement that the script "verifies the integrity of the copied
> files" (Pg. 9 of 14) and "verify the install before performing the
> reboot of the installed release." (Pg. 6 of 14) I did not see where
> the script did this.

tar does a certain amount of verification.  is that not good enough for
you?  it's good enough for me.  there was no specification as to the
thoroughness of the verification.  i rest my case.

i could do something like this:

tar xf tarball 2>tarerrors
if [ -s tarerrors ] ; then
    echo gaaaaaa
fi

> Changes to flash_install.sh can go with this change list or a separate
> one. It does make sense to check the file in with this change list.

yeah, they're just comments

> Verify_install.sh can go with this change, but I think a bug should be
> opened and filed for this fix and add this fix the Delorean release.
> It definitely should be back-ported to 2.2.3.0. Assigning a defect to
> it would expedite the process. (I would hope anyway.) Brian De Forest
> should be made aware of this fix.

why don't i open a bug for all these changes and put the changes for
verify_install.sh towards the bugs you sent me?

