Re: on software updates
Am 05.02.2015 um 13:30 schrieb Matthew Miller: On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 06:03:45PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: update, not your broader one. I am happy to defer to those who've spent more time dealing with it than me - i.e. hughsie - when they say that, no, it isn't really 'safe' to update your web browser online. (I'm equally happy to say 'meh' and go ahead and do it anyway, but that's my *personal* decision for *myself*, it doesn't mean that's the appropriate default for Fedora). Here's a good example of problems with (the current approach for) online updates for Firefox: Flash plugin up to date but Firefox keeps telling me that I have the old version: http://unix.stackexchange.com/q/174210/2511 that may all be true *but* something like please reboot your machine because there is an update for flash is ridiculous and comes near to jokes about microsoft like you moved you mouse - please reboot to make the change active signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
Matthew Miller wrote: Here's a good example of problems with (the current approach for) online updates for Firefox: Flash plugin up to date but Firefox keeps telling me that I have the old version: http://unix.stackexchange.com/q/174210/2511 We do not care about Flash. It is not in Fedora. It is not even Free Software. By the way, YouTube now defaults to HTML5. Flash is dead. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
On 05/02/15 14:21, Casey Jao wrote: Ignoring the fact that Flash player is not updated by the system package manager, Flash player is an example of a non-leaf package whose updates could affect other applications. But in this case, it would seem much less disruptive to prompt the user to restart their browser. Unlike rebooting the whole system, that can be done quickly and with no loss of state. The problem is that you also have to delete pluginreg.dat from the firefox profile directory, or firefox will continue to think you have the old flash installed even after you restart it. It's basically because the plugin is being updated by yum behind firefox's back - if it went through the normal plugin update scheme inside firefox then pluginreg.dat would be updated. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
On 02/05/2015 04:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: Here's a good example of problems with (the current approach for) online updates for Firefox: Flash plugin up to date but Firefox keeps telling me that I have the old version: http://unix.stackexchange.com/q/174210/2511 Ignoring the fact that Flash player is not updated by the system package manager, Flash player is an example of a non-leaf package whose updates could affect other applications. But in this case, it would seem much less disruptive to prompt the user to restart their browser. Unlike rebooting the whole system, that can be done quickly and with no loss of state. On Ubuntu, Firefox prompts the user to relaunch Firefox after plugins or the application itself are updated. This appears to be accomplished by a small Firefox extension that monitors the plugin directory for updates (see https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/+package/xul-ext-ubufox). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
On 02/04/2015 06:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 07:00 -0800, Casey Jao wrote: I understand where you are coming from and that a fedora user is likely to see frequent updates of lots of other packages anyway. But on slower moving distros where systems components rarely get more than security updates, browsers might be one of the more frequently updated pieces of software. Perhaps my experience is atypical (especially since I'm on F21!), but after last week's Google Chrome-only update notification (which was the impetus for this report), today I got another Gnome software prompt to restart just for google-chrome-stable. On 02/03/2015 10:22 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: Please don't top-post. I was considering the tighter characterization of a 'safe' app to update, not your broader one. I am happy to defer to those who've spent more time dealing with it than me - i.e. hughsie - when they say that, no, it isn't really 'safe' to update your web browser online. (I'm equally happy to say 'meh' and go ahead and do it anyway, but that's my *personal* decision for *myself*, it doesn't mean that's the appropriate default for Fedora). Even on 'slower moving' distributions I'd think it'd be relatively rare for an update set to *only* include packages which contained docs or static data or a very static application. And this is the *Fedora* devel@ list, so I'm not really sure how relevant these 'slower moving' distributions are to us? They're free to choose their own default update systems, of course. Would you rather this thread be moved to some Gnome mailing list? I posted here initially because I had associated Fedora closely with Gnome software (sort of like how Nexus devices are designed to channel Google's intentions with Android), but I'll be happy to continue the discussion elsewhere (is there a specific mailing list for Gnome software?) if you deem that more appropriate. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
On 02/05/2015 08:25 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: The problem is that you also have to delete pluginreg.dat from the firefox profile directory, or firefox will continue to think you have the old flash installed even after you restart it. It's basically because the plugin is being updated by yum behind firefox's back - if it went through the normal plugin update scheme inside firefox then pluginreg.dat would be updated. Deleting files out of your Firefox profile is not necessary. (I think this thread has fully derailed - are we done here?) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 06:03:45PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: update, not your broader one. I am happy to defer to those who've spent more time dealing with it than me - i.e. hughsie - when they say that, no, it isn't really 'safe' to update your web browser online. (I'm equally happy to say 'meh' and go ahead and do it anyway, but that's my *personal* decision for *myself*, it doesn't mean that's the appropriate default for Fedora). Here's a good example of problems with (the current approach for) online updates for Firefox: Flash plugin up to date but Firefox keeps telling me that I have the old version: http://unix.stackexchange.com/q/174210/2511 -- Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
RE: on software updates
From: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:devel- boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Kofler We do not care about Flash. It is not in Fedora. It is not even Free Software. It's not dead enough. Only when someone asks, Do you mean lack of clothing, memory card or camera? will it be dead enough. -- John Florian -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 07:00 -0800, Casey Jao wrote: I understand where you are coming from and that a fedora user is likely to see frequent updates of lots of other packages anyway. But on slower moving distros where systems components rarely get more than security updates, browsers might be one of the more frequently updated pieces of software. Perhaps my experience is atypical (especially since I'm on F21!), but after last week's Google Chrome-only update notification (which was the impetus for this report), today I got another Gnome software prompt to restart just for google-chrome-stable. On 02/03/2015 10:22 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 10:50 -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote: On 31 January 2015 at 21:57, Casey Jao casey@gmail.com wrote: Are there any plans to let packages specify that they do not require a total system reboot to be updated? Yes, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps -- basically, you can't do updates of rpm-sourced system-wide app deployments without a reboot in a safe way. There are classes of RPMs that definitely can be done without a reboot in a safe way (documentation-only; packages with a single executable and no libraries / separate data files; and quite a few other cases), and letting packagers opt them in to being updated without a reboot seems like a clear improvement on the status quo. It'd only be an improvement if users often saw a set of updates which *only* contained such packages. In my experience that rarely if ever happens. Please don't top-post. I was considering the tighter characterization of a 'safe' app to update, not your broader one. I am happy to defer to those who've spent more time dealing with it than me - i.e. hughsie - when they say that, no, it isn't really 'safe' to update your web browser online. (I'm equally happy to say 'meh' and go ahead and do it anyway, but that's my *personal* decision for *myself*, it doesn't mean that's the appropriate default for Fedora). Even on 'slower moving' distributions I'd think it'd be relatively rare for an update set to *only* include packages which contained docs or static data or a very static application. And this is the *Fedora* devel@ list, so I'm not really sure how relevant these 'slower moving' distributions are to us? They're free to choose their own default update systems, of course. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
I understand where you are coming from and that a fedora user is likely to see frequent updates of lots of other packages anyway. But on slower moving distros where systems components rarely get more than security updates, browsers might be one of the more frequently updated pieces of software. Perhaps my experience is atypical (especially since I'm on F21!), but after last week's Google Chrome-only update notification (which was the impetus for this report), today I got another Gnome software prompt to restart just for google-chrome-stable. On 02/03/2015 10:22 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 10:50 -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote: On 31 January 2015 at 21:57, Casey Jao casey@gmail.com wrote: Are there any plans to let packages specify that they do not require a total system reboot to be updated? Yes, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps -- basically, you can't do updates of rpm-sourced system-wide app deployments without a reboot in a safe way. There are classes of RPMs that definitely can be done without a reboot in a safe way (documentation-only; packages with a single executable and no libraries / separate data files; and quite a few other cases), and letting packagers opt them in to being updated without a reboot seems like a clear improvement on the status quo. It'd only be an improvement if users often saw a set of updates which *only* contained such packages. In my experience that rarely if ever happens. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
On 02/03/2015 07:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 10:50 -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote: On 31 January 2015 at 21:57, Casey Jao casey@gmail.com wrote: Are there any plans to let packages specify that they do not require a total system reboot to be updated? Yes, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps -- basically, you can't do updates of rpm-sourced system-wide app deployments without a reboot in a safe way. There are classes of RPMs that definitely can be done without a reboot in a safe way (documentation-only; packages with a single executable and no libraries / separate data files; and quite a few other cases), and letting packagers opt them in to being updated without a reboot seems like a clear improvement on the status quo. It'd only be an improvement if users often saw a set of updates which *only* contained such packages. In my experience that rarely if ever happens. It happens for downstreams. -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
On 02/02/2015 04:50 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: On 31 January 2015 at 21:57, Casey Jao casey@gmail.com wrote: Are there any plans to let packages specify that they do not require a total system reboot to be updated? Yes, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps -- basically, you can't do updates of rpm-sourced system-wide app deployments without a reboot in a safe way. There are classes of RPMs that definitely can be done without a reboot in a safe way (documentation-only; packages with a single executable and no libraries / separate data files; and quite a few other cases), and letting packagers opt them in to being updated without a reboot seems like a clear improvement on the status quo. And updates of sandboxed apps will need system-wide (or even larger) coordination once they start to interact with each other, so it's essentially the same affair as with RPM: Doing the right thing requires work. And to be honest, reboots aren't the problem, it's state loss on application restart. -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 10:50 -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote: On 31 January 2015 at 21:57, Casey Jao casey@gmail.com wrote: Are there any plans to let packages specify that they do not require a total system reboot to be updated? Yes, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps -- basically, you can't do updates of rpm-sourced system-wide app deployments without a reboot in a safe way. There are classes of RPMs that definitely can be done without a reboot in a safe way (documentation-only; packages with a single executable and no libraries / separate data files; and quite a few other cases), and letting packagers opt them in to being updated without a reboot seems like a clear improvement on the status quo. It'd only be an improvement if users often saw a set of updates which *only* contained such packages. In my experience that rarely if ever happens. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
On Tue, 2015-02-03 at 05:28 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Richard Hughes wrote: Yes, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps -- basically, you can't do updates of rpm-sourced system-wide app deployments without a reboot in a safe way. That's absolute nonsense. Updating had always worked that way before you changed to offline updates. It just works. You're not engaging with Richard's argument at all, which he's stated in quite a lot of detail in multiple places. His point is that it works until it doesn't - in *most* cases you happen to get away with doing something which is fundamentally unreliable, right up until it actually bites you in the ass. And he's stated several times that he and the other maintainers of packaging-related apps have had to deal with multiple bugs caused by online updates. If you can actually counter those points, we have an interesting debate, but if all you're going to do is restate the position he's already said is too simplistic, we're not going anywhere. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
On 02/01/2015 04:38 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: lsof | grep DEL | grep /usr will show you processes you may conisder to restart (and not the needs-restarting command was never relieable here) dnf install dnf-plugin-tracer http://miroslav.suchy.cz/blog/archives/2015/01/20/project_tracer_what_you_should_restart_after_dnf_upgrade/index.html -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
To clarify, I know that one can bypass the restart prompt by using dnf on the command line. But my concerns pertained to the average user, who is likely not familiar with the command line. And the average user when asked to restart for *everything* (such as a browser update) might grow increasingly inclined to keep postponing updates. That's what users were conditioned to do on Windows, and it got so bad Microsoft started resorting to extreme measures like forced reboots. What's the expected time frame for the transition to sandboxed apps and well-defined platforms? That seems like a major undertaking that will take some time to mature. I'm just wondering whether anything can be or might be done to improve the user experience in the interim. On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 31.01.2015 um 22:57 schrieb Casey Jao: Warning: long post ahead. Are there any plans to let packages specify that they do not require a total system reboot to be updated? The other day, Gnome software prompted me to reboot just to update google chrome. Given that nothing depends on chrome, and also that the Linux version of chrome is specifically designed to tolerate having its files on disk overwritten (http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2011/08/zygote.html), rebooting the whole system seems overkill to ensure a successful update ignore all that GUI update crap and just use yum upgrade no need for reboot a linux system for every update that's not windows lsof | grep DEL | grep /usr will show you processes you may conisder to restart (and not the needs-restarting command was never relieable here) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
Am 02.02.2015 um 11:50 schrieb Miroslav Suchý: On 02/01/2015 04:38 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: lsof | grep DEL | grep /usr will show you processes you may conisder to restart (and not the needs-restarting command was never relieable here) dnf install dnf-plugin-tracer http://miroslav.suchy.cz/blog/archives/2015/01/20/project_tracer_what_you_should_restart_after_dnf_upgrade/index.html cool! thank you - looks like i am not the only one :-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
Richard Hughes wrote: Yes, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps -- basically, you can't do updates of rpm-sourced system-wide app deployments without a reboot in a safe way. That's absolute nonsense. Updating had always worked that way before you changed to offline updates. It just works. And still does with Apper or with the command-line tools. For leaf applications, updating the application package requires only a restart of that application to pick up the new version, and in almost all cases the old version will keep running just fine, it'll just not be updated until you restart it. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
On 31 January 2015 at 21:57, Casey Jao casey@gmail.com wrote: Are there any plans to let packages specify that they do not require a total system reboot to be updated? Yes, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps -- basically, you can't do updates of rpm-sourced system-wide app deployments without a reboot in a safe way. There are classes of RPMs that definitely can be done without a reboot in a safe way (documentation-only; packages with a single executable and no libraries / separate data files; and quite a few other cases), and letting packagers opt them in to being updated without a reboot seems like a clear improvement on the status quo. I don’t know, perhaps they are currently rare enough that it is not worth it; but it seems to me that we will need vaguely that kind of infrastructure in any case (if only to allow updates of the sandboxed apps). Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
On 31 January 2015 at 21:57, Casey Jao casey@gmail.com wrote: Are there any plans to let packages specify that they do not require a total system reboot to be updated? Yes, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps -- basically, you can't do updates of rpm-sourced system-wide app deployments without a reboot in a safe way. Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: on software updates
Am 31.01.2015 um 22:57 schrieb Casey Jao: Warning: long post ahead. Are there any plans to let packages specify that they do not require a total system reboot to be updated? The other day, Gnome software prompted me to reboot just to update google chrome. Given that nothing depends on chrome, and also that the Linux version of chrome is specifically designed to tolerate having its files on disk overwritten (http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2011/08/zygote.html), rebooting the whole system seems overkill to ensure a successful update ignore all that GUI update crap and just use yum upgrade no need for reboot a linux system for every update that's not windows lsof | grep DEL | grep /usr will show you processes you may conisder to restart (and not the needs-restarting command was never relieable here) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
