On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 02:03:36PM +0200, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
> > Yes, that has been my first approach, but coming from a 'normal' Debian
> > version this gives all sorts of warnings and error messages about files,
> > links and directories.
> Such as?
Thsi has nothing to do with my initial mail as I messed up the package
generation there leading me to my strange path.
I did it the right way now and it looks quite ok. There would not be any
errors if I just purged the Debian-provided util-vserver. I'd like to be
able to just update to your version, though. The messages are attached.
I think it should be easy to fix by stating the resulting various
deb-files replace util-vserver.
> I never want packages touching my data, or even looking at my data.
> Then again, I am vehemently opposed to packages asking questions...
If I recall it right, RPMs are not allowed to ask questions opposed to
DEBs, which should ask the right questions to do the configuration
according to the level of question-hassle you demanded via debconf
priority. In this case I don't care as long as nothing deletes my
/ect/vserver-stuff.
> Yes, don't just upgrade, unless you spend time on figuring out how to do
> so properly. The packages are meant to replace a from-source install,
> since nobody really should be using the Debian-packages.
I'd say 90% starting with Debian and VServers use the Debian-version.
And depending on your requirements it might just be fine. Even the
horribly broken 2.6.26-Debian-VServer-Kernel works fine in most cases
where I use VServers. This is why I would really like to see teh
packages to be able to replace Debian util-vserver and I think they are
able to.
> The util-vserver and vprocunhide initscripts are orthogonal.
> vservers-default on the other hand, depends on them both. They're all
> set to get activated in postinst, so if you figure out why it didn't
> work for you...
Probably it failed due to my messed up package generation.
> > Described that above. And as it initially failed I didn't do many tests
> > as in the thread "[vserver] is default squeeze kernel and util-vserver
> > ok?" Ben stated "Getting from utils-vserver-basic-debian to util-vserver
> > is not pleasant". Perhaps I had just let myself be scared away to easily.
> That is a completely different package.
Yes, it is. They just made me believe there are general issues
preventing one to migrate from Debian-provided to original util-vserver
leading to loss of data and other nasty things.
By now I think it would just be fine to use the packages instead of teh
Debian ones, possibly even symlinking /var/lib/vservers to /vservers as
long as I make sure the --barrier is at the right spot.
Regards,
Adrian
-- LiHAS - Adrian Reyer - Hessenwiesenstraße 10 - D-70565 Stuttgart Fon: +49 (7 11) 78 28 50 90 - Fax: +49 (7 11) 78 28 50 91 Mail: lihas_at_lihas.de - Web: http://lihas.de Linux, Netzwerke, Consulting & Support - USt-ID: DE 227 816 626 StuttgartReceived on Mon May 23 15:26:58 2011