upgradeprovision alpha17 to alpha18: dbcheck errors

Michael Adam obnox at samba.org
Mon Mar 26 16:27:14 MDT 2012

Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 10:22 +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> > Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > - upgradeprovision should not be run when upgrading to this release
> > >   from a recent release.  No important database format changes have
> > >   been made since alpha16.  
> > 
> > But wouldn't it be good to make upgradeprovision idempotent?
> > It should not harm to run it (again), imho.
> It would be great if that were the case, but it simply isn't what
> upgradeprovision was designed to do.  Internally, for --full, a full new
> provision is generated, and each new object gains a new unique GUID etc.
> Some key objects are constrained, and that's why it works, but it is a
> very different approach to dbcheck, which was written to be idempotent.
> The default upgradeprovision mode is however more like dbcheck,
> attempting to primarilly fix known issues around ACLs (as I understand
> it).  (Mathieu can explain more)
> Both tools have their place in Samba, and without upgradeprovision, it
> would be impossible for the older databases to move to a modern Samba.
> And if we have the need to again make major changes our provision
> template again (unlikely as we have used ldapcmp to verify it), then it
> will be absolutely key to allowing that to happen. 
> Does this explain thing better?

Yes, it does!

Thanks - Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20120327/4266ba3d/attachment.pgp>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list