CentOS - May 2016 - yum update (first in a long time) - /var/log/dovecot no longer used

On 05/06/2016 08:38 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 3:13 am, Gary Stainburn wrote:
>> On Thursday 05 May 2016 17:16:17 Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>> There were several heated discussions on this list, and elsewhere.
This
>>> is
>>> not intended to start the new one, but to help someone who missed
them
>>> to
>>> define their statute.
>>>
>>> People split into two groups:
>>>
>>> Opponents of systemd (, firewqalld, etc.) who argue that from
formerly
>>> Unix-like system Linux becomes Unix-unlike (or more MS
Windows-like),
>>> and
>>> this is bad.
>>>
>>> Proponents of systemd etc. who argue that the life goes on, systems
>>> evolve
>>> and you better keep up with changes.
>>>
>>> Therefore, for new person who is about to, let's say, upgrade
Linux
>>> system
>>> to the version with systemd, there is a decision that will define
that
>>> person's future maintenance of this new system. And the
decision has to
>>> be
>>> made before upgrade. Luckily for those who do decide to go with
systemd,
>>> bugs (that always are present in new software) are being solved.
Luckily
>>> for those who do not accept fundamental changes systemd brings
(like
>>> binary logs or config files infested with XML garbage - sorry if
I'm
>>> missing or misinterpreting something) there are Unix system one can
>>> migrate machine to.
>>>
>>> Either way one has to read and estimate what making that step
(upgrading
>>> to systemd, firewalld based Linux or switching to some flavor of
Unix)
>>> will entail in a long run for that server and the server admin.
Either
>>> way, as in one of Unix handbooks they stress: read carefully the
upgrade
>>> notes!
>>>
>>> I hope, this helps someone.
>>>
>>> Valeri
>>>
>>
>> I understand the arguments for the move to systemd - and I also
understand
>> the
>> points of those arguments.  Like most arguments, there are some valid
and
>> positive points and some not so.
>>
>> There are times - such as the encompassing of the name resolver code -
>> where
>> it just seems a case of replacing old, mature code with new untested
code
>> for
>> no reason.
>>
>> Either way, I now have to manage both traditional and systemd based
>> systems.
>> Okay, it just means learning new toolsets, but it's something else
I have
>> to
>> learn, and something else I have to cope with for my bespoke systems
and
>> services.
> 
> I guess, I didn't stress it well enough: read the upgrade notes! In
case
> of switching to systemd: read about what the change means.
> 
> In other words, at least in minds of those who decided to migrate to UNIX,
> this change it not just about learning new tools. It is about how the
> system works. I am not going to argue they (refugees to UNIX) are right,
> or proponents of systemd (and friends) are right. The important part is
> that each weighed the changed and will deal with the consequences of the
> decision made conscientiously. But for that (to make good decision), once
> again:
> 
> Read the "upgrade notes" [systemd documentation in this case]!
This is the
> decision about your system and its future life.
Right.  And I do want to point out, this list is really not the place to
discuss the positives and negatives of systemd vs. upstart vs. SysV.
The goal of CentOS is to build RHEL source code with the absolute
minimum changes required for branding.  So, we get the init system that
is in the source code.

Having that kind of discussion on a Fedora list might be appropriate if
you are not a RHEL customer or on a RHEL list if you are.
> 
>>
>> What I didn't expect, and what really threw me was that this has
been
>> implemented via a simply 'yum update' of an existing system,
not at a
>> major
>> release level.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20160506/68b63d84/attachment-0001.sig>

On Fri, May 6, 2016 8:46 am, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 05/06/2016 08:38 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 3:13 am, Gary Stainburn wrote:
>>> On Thursday 05 May 2016 17:16:17 Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>>> There were several heated discussions on this list, and
elsewhere.
>>>> This
>>>> is
>>>> not intended to start the new one, but to help someone who
missed them
>>>> to
>>>> define their statute.
>>>>
>>>> People split into two groups:
>>>>
>>>> Opponents of systemd (, firewqalld, etc.) who argue that from
formerly
>>>> Unix-like system Linux becomes Unix-unlike (or more MS
Windows-like),
>>>> and
>>>> this is bad.
>>>>
>>>> Proponents of systemd etc. who argue that the life goes on,
systems
>>>> evolve
>>>> and you better keep up with changes.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, for new person who is about to, let's say,
upgrade Linux
>>>> system
>>>> to the version with systemd, there is a decision that will
define that
>>>> person's future maintenance of this new system. And the
decision has
>>>> to
>>>> be
>>>> made before upgrade. Luckily for those who do decide to go with
>>>> systemd,
>>>> bugs (that always are present in new software) are being
solved.
>>>> Luckily
>>>> for those who do not accept fundamental changes systemd brings
(like
>>>> binary logs or config files infested with XML garbage - sorry
if I'm
>>>> missing or misinterpreting something) there are Unix system one
can
>>>> migrate machine to.
>>>>
>>>> Either way one has to read and estimate what making that step
>>>> (upgrading
>>>> to systemd, firewalld based Linux or switching to some flavor
of Unix)
>>>> will entail in a long run for that server and the server admin.
Either
>>>> way, as in one of Unix handbooks they stress: read carefully
the
>>>> upgrade
>>>> notes!
>>>>
>>>> I hope, this helps someone.
>>>>
>>>> Valeri
>>>>
>>>
>>> I understand the arguments for the move to systemd - and I also
>>> understand
>>> the
>>> points of those arguments.  Like most arguments, there are some
valid
>>> and
>>> positive points and some not so.
>>>
>>> There are times - such as the encompassing of the name resolver
code -
>>> where
>>> it just seems a case of replacing old, mature code with new
untested
>>> code
>>> for
>>> no reason.
>>>
>>> Either way, I now have to manage both traditional and systemd based
>>> systems.
>>> Okay, it just means learning new toolsets, but it's something
else I
>>> have
>>> to
>>> learn, and something else I have to cope with for my bespoke
systems
>>> and
>>> services.
>>
>> I guess, I didn't stress it well enough: read the upgrade notes! In
case
>> of switching to systemd: read about what the change means.
>>
>> In other words, at least in minds of those who decided to migrate to
>> UNIX,
>> this change it not just about learning new tools. It is about how the
>> system works. I am not going to argue they (refugees to UNIX) are
right,
>> or proponents of systemd (and friends) are right. The important part is
>> that each weighed the changed and will deal with the consequences of
the
>> decision made conscientiously. But for that (to make good decision),
>> once
>> again:
>>
>> Read the "upgrade notes" [systemd documentation in this
case]! This is
>> the
>> decision about your system and its future life.
>
> Right.  And I do want to point out, this list is really not the place to
> discuss the positives and negatives of systemd vs. upstart vs. SysV.
> The goal of CentOS is to build RHEL source code with the absolute
> minimum changes required for branding.  So, we get the init system that
> is in the source code.
Exactly. As I said in the first post (reply to which happened to hijack
the thread - my apologies that was not intended by me), it was only
intended to help those who are just about to make this step to really
think about what it will entail. And thanks everybody who added their
comments, they all do the same what I intended.

Valeri
>
> Having that kind of discussion on a Fedora list might be appropriate if
> you are not a RHEL customer or on a RHEL list if you are.
>
>>
>>>
>>> What I didn't expect, and what really threw me was that this
has been
>>> implemented via a simply 'yum update' of an existing
system, not at a
>>> major
>>> release level.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Friday 06 May 2016 14:55:33 Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>
> Exactly. As I said in the first post (reply to which happened to hijack
> the thread - my apologies that was not intended by me), it was only
> intended to help those who are just about to make this step to really
> think about what it will entail. And thanks everybody who added their
> comments, they all do the same what I intended.
>
> Valeri
>
Unfortunately, the problem was that I didn't (know I) have a decision to
make
regarding systemd or SysV.

My decision was   do I keep my system up to date (which it wasn't) or not. 
I
am sure that I am no different to 90% of sysadmins who don't read all
release
notes before every 'yum update' run.

I do have to concede that the update did update a great deal of RPM's and 
probably some by a number of versions.  This no doubt is the reason I now 
have a reasonable sized number of changes I need to deal with (including 
keep_environment in EXIM, and journals moving on Dovecot )