Bug 14017 - ctdb.service should have a condition on /etc/ctdb/nodes
Summary: ctdb.service should have a condition on /etc/ctdb/nodes
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Samba 4.1 and newer
Classification: Unclassified
Component: CTDB (show other bugs)
Version: 4.10.5
Hardware: All All
: P5 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Karolin Seeger
QA Contact: Samba QA Contact
URL:
Keywords:
: 14026 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2019-06-27 20:16 UTC by Rafael David Tinoco
Modified: 2019-08-09 08:10 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
ctdb-config-depend-on-etc-default-nodes-file.patch (1.10 KB, patch)
2019-06-27 20:16 UTC, Rafael David Tinoco 		no flags Details
Patch for 4.9 and 4.10 (1.37 KB, patch)
2019-07-08 12:26 UTC, Martin Schwenke 		amitay: review+
Details
Show Obsolete (1) View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Rafael David Tinoco 2019-06-27 20:16:35 UTC 
Created attachment 15269 [details]
ctdb-config-depend-on-etc-default-nodes-file.patch

ctdb-config: depend on /etc/default/nodes file

    CTDB should start as a disabled unit (systemd) in most of the
    distributions and, when trying to enable it for the first time, user
    should get an unconfigured, or similar, error.

    Depending on /etc/ctdb/nodes file will give a clear direction to final
    user on what is needed in order to get cluster up and running. It should
    work like previous ENABLED=NO variables in SySV like initialization
    scripts.
Comment 1 Martin Schwenke 2019-07-03 04:50:56 UTC 
Seems like a sane idea.  :-)

ConditionFileNotEmpty looks to have been around since 2013, so there don't look to be any backward compatibility issues.

CC:ing Andreas: Do you have any comments?  Just wondering, since you know systemd better than me.  :-)

Thanks...
Comment 2 Amitay Isaacs 2019-07-05 02:46:36 UTC 
*** Bug 14026 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Amitay Isaacs 2019-07-05 02:51:28 UTC 
The bug has been assigned and it's being worked on.  There is no need to open multiple bugs for the same defect.
Comment 4 Martin Schwenke 2019-07-08 12:26:54 UTC 
Created attachment 15295 [details]
Patch for 4.9 and 4.10

No CI passed here because this is packaging, which is not tested in autobuild
Comment 5 Amitay Isaacs 2019-07-09 09:52:16 UTC 
Hi Karolin,

This is ready for v4-9 and v4-10.

Thanks.
Comment 6 Karolin Seeger 2019-08-06 10:37:59 UTC 
(In reply to Amitay Isaacs from comment #5)
Pushed to autobuild-v4-{10,9}-test.
Comment 7 Karolin Seeger 2019-08-09 08:10:54 UTC 
(In reply to Karolin Seeger from comment #6)
Pushed to both branches.
Closing out bug report.

Thanks!