[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#417553: marked as done (release-notes: R N for Zope)

Your message dated Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:18:27 +0200
with message-id <200704031918.27810.elendil@planet.nl>
and subject line Bug#417553: release-notes: R N for Zope
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release-notes
Severity: wishlist

hi

I prepared a short paragraph for R N  regarding zope

see attachment (that is a -u diff w.r.t. latest CVS)

a.

Index: release-notes.en.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/debian-doc/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/en/release-notes.en.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.231
diff -u -r1.231 release-notes.en.sgml
--- release-notes.en.sgml	3 Apr 2007 07:14:24 -0000	1.231
+++ release-notes.en.sgml	3 Apr 2007 09:03:43 -0000
@@ -844,7 +844,7 @@
 
 	</sect1>
 	
-        <sect1><heading>Checking packages status</heading>
+        <sect1 id="package_status_and_holds"><heading>Checking packages status</heading>
 
           <p>Regardless of the method used for upgrading, it is recommended
           that you check the status of all packages first, and verify that
@@ -2473,6 +2473,43 @@
 
       </sect>
 
+      <sect id="zope"> <heading>Upgrading Zope and Plone</heading>
+	<p><prgn/Zope/ and all zope related products were updated;  &oldreleasename;
+        shipped <prgn/Zope/ 2.7 , that depends on <prgn/Python/ 2.3 ; and it
+	shipped <prgn/CMF/ 1.4 and <prgn/Plone/ 2.0.5 ; while  &releasename; instead
+	ships <prgn/Zope/ 2.9, which depends on <prgn/Python/ 2.4, <prgn/CMF/ 1.6 and <prgn/Plone/
+	2.5.1.
+	Many products were also dropped from the distribution (either because
+	  they were obsoleted, or incompatible with the newer
+          <prgn/Zope/, <prgn/CMF/ and <prgn/Plone/).</p>
+	<p>The user wishing to upgrade must beware of a known fact: there is no
+	  easy and guaranteed way to upgrade a complex <prgn/Zope/ or <prgn/Plone/ server.
+	  Even though <prgn/Plone/ contains a migration tool, indeed, due to the
+	  complexity of the <prgn/Plone/ server, it has been experienced that the
+	  automatic migration may easily fail.
+          </p>
+	<p>For this reason, it is recommended that the user willing to upgrade be
+	  able to run both the old (= &oldreleasename;) and the new (=  &releasename;) version of
+	  Debian for as long as needed for the correct migration of his <prgn/Zope/ / <prgn/Plone/
+	  services. The easiest and safest way to achieve this is to make a copy of the O.S. onto
+          another hard disk or hard disk partition, and then upgrade one of the
+          two copies , and use chroots to run the &oldreleasename; version in parallel to the
+          &releasename; version.</p>
+	<p>In case this is not possible, there is a limited possibility of running
+	  different versions of those products in the same Debian installation:
+	  it is indeed possible to concurrently keep <prgn/Zope/ 2.7 and 2.9 , and <prgn/Python/
+	  2.3 and 2.4 installed in Debian , since different versions are in
+	  packages by different names, namely <package/zope2.7/, <package/zope2.9/,
+          <package/python2.3/,
+	  <package/python2.4/. But it is very important to notice that &releasename; does not
+	  contain the &oldreleasename; versions: so, during upgrade, good care must be taken
+	  that the old version not be removed; to this end, package holding
+          (as explained in <ref id="package_status_and_holds">) may be helpful.
+ Also, the above does not apply
+	  to <prgn/Plone/, since the <package/zope-cmfplone/ package is not similarly  versioned, alas.
+	</p>
+      </sect>
+
       <sect id="php-globals"> <heading>Deprecated insecure php configurations</heading>
         <p>For many years, turning on the <tt/register_globals/ settings in PHP
         has been known to be insecure and dangerous, and this option has defaulted to

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Tuesday 03 April 2007 11:05, A Mennucc wrote:
> I prepared a short paragraph for R N  regarding zope

Hmm. Apparently our definition of "short" differs somewhat :-)

Using your text as basis, I have rewritten the section somewhat, both to 
shorten it and to improve the English a bit.

Attached is the version I have committed. Please review it. If you see any 
problems, those can of course be fixed.

Note that the release notes are about to be finalized, so we preferably 
need your feedback within the next day.

Thank you for providing the patch.

Cheers,
FJP


? R-N-Zope.diff
? R-N-Zope_fjp.diff
? body.tmp
? head.tmp
? release-notes.en.html
? release-notes.en.ps
? release-notes.en.txt
Index: release-notes.en.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/debian-doc/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/en/release-notes.en.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.234
diff -u -r1.234 release-notes.en.sgml
--- release-notes.en.sgml	3 Apr 2007 15:37:40 -0000	1.234
+++ release-notes.en.sgml	3 Apr 2007 17:13:22 -0000
@@ -967,7 +967,7 @@
 
 	</sect1>
 	
-        <sect1><heading>Checking packages status</heading>
+        <sect1 id="package_status"><heading>Checking packages status</heading>
 
           <p>Regardless of the method used for upgrading, it is recommended
           that you check the status of all packages first, and verify that
@@ -2530,6 +2530,32 @@
 
       </sect>
 
+      <sect id="zope"> <heading>Upgrading Zope and Plone</heading>
+	<p>Zope and all related products have been updated. Many products were
+	also dropped from the distribution (either because they were obsoleted,
+	or because they are incompatible with the newer Zope, CMF or Plone.</p>
+	<p>Unfortunately there is no easy and guaranteed way to upgrade a
+	complex <prgn/zope/ or <prgn/plone/ server. Even though Plone includes
+	a migration tool, experience has shown that automatic migrations
+	can easily fail.</p>
+
+	<p>For this reason, users are recommended to set up their system so they
+	can continue to run the &oldreleasename; installation of Zope/Plone
+	alongside the new &releasename; versions while testing the migration.</p>
+	<p>The easiest and safest way to achieve this, is to make a copy of your
+	&oldreleasename; system to another hard disk or partition, and then
+	upgrade only one of the two copies. You can then use <prgn/chroot/ to
+	run the &oldreleasename; version in parallel to the &releasename;
+	version.</p>
+
+	<p>For Zope, you may also be able to keep the old packages installed on
+	your &releasename; system. For most packages this is possible as they
+	use a different name space. To keep the old versions, you will need to
+	package holding as documented in <ref id="package_status">. This method
+	is not possible for Plone because the <package/zope-cmfplone/ package
+	is not versioned.</p>
+      </sect>
+
       <sect id="php-globals"> <heading>Deprecated insecure php configurations</heading>
         <p>For many years, turning on the <tt/register_globals/ settings in PHP
         has been known to be insecure and dangerous, and this option has defaulted to
@@ -2537,7 +2563,7 @@
         now finally deprecated on Debian systems as too dangerous.
         The same applies to flaws in <tt/safe_mode/ and <tt/open_basedir/, which
         have also been unmaintained for some time.</p>
-        
+
         <p>Starting with this release, the Debian security team does not provide
         security support for a number of PHP configurations which are known to
         be insecure. Most importantly, issues resulting from

Attachment: pgpOJLHfvBP9B.pgp
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: