> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Shawn Walker
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Alexander Vlasov wrote:
> >>
> >> Lurie wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes.. writing an entire package manager from the
> >>>> ground up is *less* work than maintaining the
> patches.
> >>>
> >>> This is called "moving forward", IPS is based on
> new novel ideas, a
> >>> secure package manager without any arbitrary
> post/pre-install scripts,
> >>
> >> That's why lots of packages deliver their own SMF
> service which runs only
> >> once.
> >
> > ...which is better because those SMF scripts:
> >
> > * can run at "boot", which fits correctly with a
> zfs-based rollback setup
> >
> 
> Which means those packages will require system
>  reboot not unlike
>   Windoze!
> egards,
> Moinak.

For a new package that wouldn't otherwise need it, that's a major nuisance.

For an update to an existing package, that's maybe a good thing, since it
would ensure that all apps that depended on that package would be using
the same version, rather than having some running before the update
using the old version, and some running after the update using the new version.
While that may not often cause problems, I'd guess that in at least some cases, 
it
might be simpler to avoid the possibility than to accurately determine whether 
it
could cause problems.  Indeed, that might be generally a large part of
"unnecessary" reboots being required in general.  Although the other part may be
when it's _not_ that difficult to determine what inconsistencies may arise, or 
what
a safe procedure might be, but nobody wants to go to the trouble of documenting 
it.
And of course, if you want to reduce updates to one-click simplicity, it's 
probably
better erring on the side of caution - presumably deferring the updates from
taking effect until a reboot.  Which means a sensible person would still 
schedule
a reboot not too long after such updates, so they can be around when the reboot
happens, rather than risking an update-related problem following  a crash when
nobody is around.

Just like with price, reliability, capacity, it seems like "pick any two" also
applies to easy, safe, downtime-free.  Those who could accomplish all three
would probably _rule_, and probably be wise enough not to want to...
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]

Reply via email to