AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20090125163105.13fbf164@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:exch1.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<larry.scheer@onstor.com>,<sandrine.boulanger@onstor.com>,<ed.kwan@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@exch1.onstor.net/INBOX	0	2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB51851A85120@exch1.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:31:35 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: Larry Scheer <larry.scheer@onstor.com>
Cc: Sandrine Boulanger <sandrine.boulanger@onstor.com>, Ed Kwan
 <ed.kwan@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: Failed validation for defect 23832 in 4.0.2 sub#3, maybe build
 issue?
Message-ID: <20090125163135.4597c11e@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB51851A85120@exch1.onstor.net>
References: <2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB51851A5B862@exch1.onstor.net>
	<2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB51851A85120@exch1.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:33:01 -0800 Larry Scheer
<larry.scheer@onstor.com> wrote:

> We would care if the old socat causes problems with emrs. It was
> never clear to me that it created any problems. We just had 2
> versions of socat on the system. It is much easier not to build and
> install an extra version. Which I think was the nature of the defect.

It's really a maintenance issue: the old version had a lot of bugs that
are fixed in the new one, well, they're fixed in the old one too, but
that's because we fixed them.  To some degree.  I don't want to do
our own maintenance for standard utility programs, not if we can
possibly avoid it.  Especially if it doesn't fit in the packaging
scheme.

> Andy, was there defects filed against the onstor build of socat on
> cougar (besides this one)? Is the workflow of system copy init;
> system upgrade sufficient?

Hmm.  Doing a system copy init followed by a system upgrade will take
care of it.  In general, we need to be able to delete things from a
distribution and have them disappear when a system upgrade is done.
Just a note for the future.

> _____________________________________________ From: Sandrine Boulanger
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 5:32 PM
> To: Larry Scheer; Ed Kwan
> Cc: Andy Sharp
> Subject: RE: Failed validation for defect 23832 in 4.0.2 sub#3, maybe
> build issue?
> 
> Do we care if it's still there from previous installs? If we don't,
> there's no need to remove it through the upgrade.

Well, we would want to reclaim the space.

> _____________________________________________
> From: Larry Scheer
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:23 AM
> To: Sandrine Boulanger; Ed Kwan
> Cc: Andy Sharp
> Subject: RE: Failed validation for defect 23832 in 4.0.2 sub#3, maybe
> build issue?
> 
> You have your answer:  "which socat" shows you have /onstor/bin/socat
> and it is first in your path. This suggests system upgrade is not
> removing a previously installed socat
> 
> I will look at system upgrade to see if a version of it exists that
> removes /onstor/bin/socat at install time. Unless it is a special
> case, system upgrade does not remove old files. To do this you need
> to run system copy init followed by system upgrade.
> 
> So the question remains. Do you want system upgrade to specifically
> remove /onstor/bin/socat in 4.0.2 sub 4?
> 
> Larry
> 
> _____________________________________________
> From: Sandrine Boulanger
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:01 AM
> To: Ed Kwan; Larry Scheer
> Cc: Andy Sharp
> Subject: RE: Failed validation for defect 23832 in 4.0.2 sub#3, maybe
> build issue?
> 
> Then why does "socat -v" shows 1.4.2? I just followed the regression
> info on the defect, and I did not get what was expected. g6r10:~#
> which socat /onstor/bin/socat
> g6r10:~#
> 
> _____________________________________________
> From: Ed Kwan
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:29 AM
> To: Sandrine Boulanger; Larry Scheer
> Cc: Andy Sharp
> Subject: RE: Failed validation for defect 23832 in 4.0.2 sub#3, maybe
> build issue?
> 
> Verify on a brand new 4.0.2.0 sub 3 system (not upgrade from 4.0.x.x)
> we don't have /onstor/bin/socat, just /usr/bin/socat. Nothing to do
> in sub 4 unless we want to delete obsolete binaries during "system
> upgrade".
> 
> _____________________________________________
> From: Sandrine Boulanger
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 9:52 AM
> To: Larry Scheer; Ed Kwan
> Cc: Andy Sharp
> Subject: RE: Failed validation for defect 23832 in 4.0.2 sub#3, maybe
> build issue?
> 
> So what's next? Do we have something to fix for sub#4?
> 
> _____________________________________________
> From: Larry Scheer
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:04 PM
> To: Ed Kwan; Sandrine Boulanger
> Cc: Andy Sharp
> Subject: RE: Failed validation for defect 23832 in 4.0.2 sub#3, maybe
> build issue?
> 
> The fix for 23832 was to remove the socat build from the nfx-tree for
> cougars. So there won't be one in the build directory or
> in /onstor/bin.
> 
> It is in the root file system as /usr/bin/socat
> 
> dpkg -l socat
> ii  socat                       1.4.3.1-1
> multipurpose relay for bidirectional data transfer
> 
> _____________________________________________
> From: Ed Kwan
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 7:18 PM
> To: Sandrine Boulanger; Larry Scheer
> Subject: RE: Failed validation for defect 23832 in 4.0.2 sub#3, maybe
> build issue?
> 
> I don't think socat is in the build:
> [build@k3 bin]$ pwd
> /perforce/trees/r402rel/nfx-tree/Build/cg/opt/bin
> [build@k3 bin]$ ls *socat*
> ls: *socat*: No such file or directory
> 
> Do we delete the old "/onstor/bin/socat" during "system upgrade -f"?
> 
> _____________________________________________
> From: Sandrine Boulanger
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:01 PM
> To: Ed Kwan; Larry Scheer
> Subject: Failed validation for defect 23832 in 4.0.2 sub#3, maybe
> build issue?
> 
> 23832 BSD socat being installed and used on Linux build
> 
