older os-collect-config can't be updated or upgraded via heat
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
| tripleo |
High
|
Marios Andreou |
Bug Description
Older versions of os-collect-config (in particular prior to os-collect-
As discussed at https:/
Regardless of the 'real' fix in newer occ packages we are still left with the problem of updating existing setups; sbaker suggest that adding:
KillMode=
SendSIGKILL=no
To the occ unit file:
"This means that when os-collect-config gets restarted, the current running os-refresh-config will continue to completion. Its not ideal because os-refresh-config output stops getting logged to the journal, and you only find out what happened in the rest of the run if/when the various heat deployment resources get signaled. "
Which got me thinking that perhaps we could just deliver this with a crudini on the unit file, as part of the upgrade init command? It would have to go to stable/mitaka for the bugzillas that need this fix, but I don't see why we can't also have it on master, too. Posting review momentarily for pointing at and discussion.
One outstanding question for me, which I'll find out via testing (probably tomorrow at this rate), is, is it OK to just edit the unit file in place and expect that to work for the fixup? (i.e. do we need to restart the service too?)
thanks, marios
Changed in tripleo: | |
status: | Triaged → In Progress |
Marios Andreou (marios-b) wrote : | #2 |
posted to master for now @ https:/
Marios Andreou (marios-b) wrote : | #3 |
as discussed on the review, it is expected that updating to a version of occ with the sigkill (i.e. in a new package ) will result in successful upgrade of occ with the usual workflow - so the fix itself is packaging only, no special case needed for upgrading from a 'broken' occ, so not a bug in tripleo, setting invalid
Changed in tripleo: | |
status: | In Progress → Won't Fix |
status: | Won't Fix → Invalid |
Change abandoned by Marios Andreou (<email address hidden>) on branch: master
Review: https:/
Reason: thanks for looking sbaker
Steve Baker (steve-stevebaker) wrote : | #5 |
I've submitted a packaging fix here http://
Fix proposed to branch: master /review. openstack. org/342278
Review: https:/