On 07/16/2017 08:54 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: >> This is also trivial to offer in a UI. > I think you and I disagree on what trivial constitutes. > >> And the (unrelated) online update issue is really a non-issue in practice, >> as I explained in my reply to Debarshi Ray. > Until you're the person that's explaining to someone why their system > is HOSED (hint: that's usually me) because they rebooted during a live > update, please don't call this a non-issue. Moving to offline updates > reduced the number of people filing bugs about systems being broken by > about two orders of magnitude. "But it always worked fine for me" > doesn't scale to tens of millions of users.
I doubt "two orders of magnitude" as I run the desktop machines at university department even with dnf-automatic without high impact. Sometimes a reboot might be required or useful, but that does not prevent successful live updates. Also offline updates have their own disadvantages, as the process can take long time depending on the updates (worst case: texlive), this is really annoying. You think "Oh, some updates, apply them before I start to work" and then have to wait long time. The only thing that has to be ensured: No shutdown or reboot while update is running. But this does not justify offline updates. One thing that would be nice to have (and not so hard to implement), a flag whether logout or reboot is suggested after update is done (the info we have in bodhi). If flag raised, dnf can print message @terminal and/or use notification daemon for that. > Packages are a great way to build a system (either ostree or flatpak, > or both), but I think the last 15 years of experience shows us it's > not a great way to manage a system. I completely disagree here, packages have proven to be a great way here within last decades, even in enterprise field ;) I see use cases for ostree and especially for this discussion: flatpak, therefore we should provide the runtime and also SDK to build, of course. But I really don't get the point of using it as a general distribution mechanism. There packages are just fine (and IMHO preferred as the more low level way) and the Fedora distribution itself has to be self-consistent anyway, no matter what we use. But packages are the established way, no need to change. Greetings, Christian _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
