update: set -d and -f for release updates and thick jail updates #810
Conversation
|
Will happily test this week. |
tschettervictor
changed the title
|
@michael-o let me know when you have tested this. I will test it in the morning myself. |
On my radar for this week. |
|
You might also consider to sync var names with |
usr/local/share/bastille/update.sh
Outdated
| env PAGER="/bin/cat" freebsd-update ${OPTION} \ | ||
| --not-running-from-cron \ | ||
| -b "${_releasepath}" \ | ||
| -d "${_releasepath}/var/db/freebsd-update" \ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you really the update database be part of the release? It is not a jail after all?!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's the working directory. I figured best to keep it all consigned to the jail.
Not?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, it is not a jail, is it? You are updating a release which is used for bootstrapping and thin jails. Update management should be out of band. I'd like to know what others think here. @bmac2 @jdhg-orbiware
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh sorry, that is the release we are talking about here. I thought it was the jail.
Still, we are updating the release, and I'm not sure if the database is touched in there or not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@michael-o I closed our other 2 conversations here about the -b option. We can discuss here.
Because this is a release, we do need the -b option. Unlike jails, where you can specify the -j option, we need to tell freebsd to use the release as a base directory, and also where the workdir should be.
Don't you think?
#668
@michael-o This should fix updating a thick jail and also a base release. I have added both "-d" and "-f" to make sure "update_release" and "update_jail" know where they are supposed to set the workdir, basedir, and conf file.
Can you test?
Simply do a
bastille update RELEASEorbastille update jail