Upgrade best practice (Full Version)

All Forums >> [SFU / Interix / SUA Technology] >> Windows Server 2003 R2 SUA



Message


breiter -> Upgrade best practice (Dec. 12, '05, 6:05:24 AM)

In my organization I have several workstations and servers that run Win2k3 SP1/SFU 3.5. At some point, I want them all to be upgraded to R2/SUA. The first guinea pig will be me.

What is the best approach to upgrade a system from Win2k3 SP1 with Interix from SFU 3.5 to Win2k3 R2 with SUA? Should Visual Studio 2005 (Whidbey) be installed after SUA or does it make no difference? Must the SDK utilities be installed last of all or before Whidbey? What, if any, special incantations should be observed so that I don't hose my system?

Thanks in advance.




breiter -> RE: Upgrade best practice (Dec. 12, '05, 9:56:03 AM)

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/R2/unixcomponents/webinstall.mspx
quote:

Installing and Using Utilities and SDK for UNIX-based Applications
Published: May 6, 2005

Learn to install and use the add-on called Utilities and SDK for UNIX-based applications.

IMPORTANT NOTE:
This is a pre-release version of Utilities and SDK for Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications. The full release version will be available on this Web site starting January 7, 2006.


I just realized that while Win2k3 R2 and SUA is released and available via MSDN, the UNIX utilities and SDK are a separate download which is still BETA and will not be released until January 7, 2006.

So I guess best practice #1 is to not jump the gun and wait until everything is released by Microsoft.




Rodney -> RE: Upgrade best practice (Dec. 12, '05, 1:16:18 PM)

I make a comment on the "Important Note".
The January 7 release will be the "security checked" release. That is, the list of
concerns by the security group whill have been checked. There will be releases after
this that will have utilities updated.




breiter -> RE: Upgrade best practice (Jan. 10, '06, 5:36:31 AM)

Now that the initial "Utilities & SDK" release is available, for Interix 5.2 (SUA), how to get there from here?

It looks like pkgs/5.2-x86 is a symlink to pkgs/3.5. Does that indicate that there should be binary compatibility between Interix 3.5 and Interix 5.2 binaries (provided that they are not mixed-mode)? Is the issue with tar/pax being unable to load libc resolved?

Can one do an "upgrade" per se, or does it come downd to usinstalling SFU 3.5 and deleting C:\SFU (%SFUDIR%), rebooting, installing SUA, rebooting, and then the new tools and SDK and starting all over again with the /Tools packages and migrate your dotfiles.




Rodney -> RE: Upgrade best practice (Jan. 10, '06, 12:33:29 PM)

The binaries as built by MS are static binaries.
There is no problem with static binaries built on 3.5 running on R2.
It is only binaries that use shared 3.5 libraries. The 5.4 shared libraries are okay.
So, right now, many the the /Tools packages won't run on 5.4 because they are 3.5 based.
This includes bash and openssh.

The MS dev group is working on the fix as I understand it (I don't know timelines on this).




gwojan -> RE: Upgrade best practice (Jan. 10, '06, 2:44:02 PM)

Rodney,

Can you go into a little more detail of the various "versions" being discussed? I'm just a little confused between 3.5 -> 5.2 -> 5.4 etc.

You also mentioned in another post about this release just being security related and another would be coming with actual updates if I understood correctly. Actually, I didn't understand so that's why I'm asking. [:)]

Thanks.

--Greg




Rodney -> RE: Upgrade best practice (Jan. 10, '06, 4:01:33 PM)

Okay, to clear things up (hopefully [:)]):

"3.5" refers to SFU version 3.5 which includes Interix version 3.5.

"5.4" is a typo on my part; sorry about that. I'd meant "5.2".
(That stated, I think that SUA/Interix on Vista will be version 5.4.)

"5.2" is Interix version 5.2 which is the SUA release on W2K3/R2 only.

There's a history to the utilities of course. I'll skip most of it to focus on
the more recent time. The utilities and libraries from Interix version 3.0 are
used in version 3.5 with only a few changes. The largest change was X11R6.6
library being added. A couple of utilities were updated. Most were left alone.

For the 5.2 release a large plan was proposed to update everything. It's happening
in a series of phases. Details skipped for brevity, but the Phase Zero is an
update/check based on security for several utilities and API's. So the 5.2 BSD
utilities (the "base") now getting released have this phase zero work.
Plus, if you're on 64-bit, a number of utilities have been built as 64 bit.
(All versus 3.5).

More updates are happening but the release schedule I'd don't know right now.
These include updating to utilities and libraries that are here at /Tools.
And yes, these updates include adding new API's plus header file additions.




gwojan -> RE: Upgrade best practice (Jan. 10, '06, 4:27:58 PM)

Very Cool! [:D]

I just asked this in one of the other forums but does this mean we get Large File support?




Rodney -> RE: Upgrade best practice (Jan. 10, '06, 4:57:43 PM)

> I just asked this in one of the other forums but does this mean we get Large File support?

...and answered there:
http://www.interopsystems.com/tools/tm.aspx?m=7679&mpage=1&key=ỉ




breiter -> RE: Upgrade best practice (Jan. 10, '06, 5:45:13 PM)

quote:

Rodney:
There is no problem with static binaries built on 3.5 running on R2.
It is only binaries that use shared 3.5 libraries. The 5.4 shared libraries are okay.
So, right now, many the the /Tools packages won't run on 5.4 because they are 3.5 based.
This includes bash and openssh.

The MS dev group is working on the fix as I understand it (I don't know timelines on this).


Ack. Don't forget tar/pax which pkg_* needs in order to work:

% objdump -p /bin/tar | egrep -i needed
NEEDED libc.so.3.5
% objdump -p /bin/pax | egrep -i needed
NEEDED libc.so.3.5

So the short answer is that going with SUA 5.2 today (assuming that one can download the correct base utils and sdk) will not be compatible with the /Tools portage and pkg_update? I would basically have to acquire the source and make all of the binaries myself for everything?

% pkg_info | wc -l
105

That's a lot. I don't think that I have that kind of time. I hope the team at MS prioritize the loading of shared libraries, because without it Interix 5.2 doesn't seem ready for prime time to me.




Rodney -> RE: Upgrade best practice (Jan. 11, '06, 10:39:26 AM)

Yeah, it's kinda odd because there would have had to be effort and work to
make 3.5 shared libraries work on 5.2 (for Beta's and RC0). And MS is very
big on this "it'll keep running on the next release" thing.

At some point I'll start making specific 5.2 builds. But I was hoping to do
this in a "gentle, ordered manner" :-)




breiter -> RE: Upgrade best practice (Jan. 11, '06, 10:43:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rodney

Yeah, it's kinda odd because there would have had to be effort and work to
make 3.5 shared libraries work on 5.2 (for Beta's and RC0). And MS is very
big on this "it'll keep running on the next release" thing.


"Kinda odd" is an understatment. Can you imagine if binaries built on NT 5.1 (XP) could not run on NT 5.2 (2k3) because the DLLs won't load?

Microsoft's whole raison d' etre is backward compatiblity. They almost make a fetish of it. In my book this is a high-priority defect. I hope the Interix team at Microsoft is listening.




Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI

0.031