[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #29 from Neal Gompa --- Blech, I misunderstood "restart" state, but I'm working on reboot + relogin. Once I have an implementation for this in the DNF backend, I can give advice of how to interpret it from PackageKit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #28 from Neal Gompa --- libdnf bug for reference: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959022 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #27 from Neal Gompa --- So Fedora already offers the "reboot_suggested" flag for updates published in Fedora. I've sent a PR to Bodhi (the updates submission and publishing system) to also add support for application restart (reload) and user logout+login (relogin) flags as specified in RPM updateinfo metadata: https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/pull/4214 I'm currently working on libdnf to add an API for PackageKit-DNF to consume. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 Nate Graham changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REPORTED Resolution|INTENTIONAL |--- --- Comment #26 from Nate Graham --- Re-opening since I think we may have a narrow path forward: - Make use of the existing "needs reboot" flag, if it's set - Encourage distros and packagers to set it more often - Try to determine for ourselves whether a reboot is requires by cross-referencing the binaries/files that a package update has installed with the list of open files; an update that has changes files none of which are currently open does not require a reboot -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com --- Comment #25 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #20) > Re: comment #1 > > "We don't have such information (to know if a restart is required or not)" > > PackageKit presumably does (depending on backend support of course): > https://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2007/08/23/packagekit-requiring-a-restart/ > > Or at least it did at one time, I don't know it's current state as that post > is pretty old. > > That said, I do agree with the general consensus that offline updates is a > better option in most scenarios. PackageKit still supports this, but most backends just don't bother to set the information whether restart is required and basically set it to not required unconditionally. Consequently, no frontends care about that information and don't use it for deciding whether a reboot is required. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #24 from lnx...@westlot.net --- (In reply to Manuel Geißer from comment #22) > (In reply to Harald Sitter from comment #3) > > Can you outline heuristics for what requires a reboot and what does not? > Hmm, is there a list of which other packages depend on a package? Then a > basic heuristic would be not to require reboot for packages that are not > dependencies of other (installed) packages. This would at least allow to > exclude most end-user applications, like web browsers and office > applications, where a reboot should not be needed. That info is already available in every .deb package, it just needs to be gathered and stored in a central location to prevent having to check each individual package needing updating. There would also need to be a way to grab that data when a package manager other than Discover was used to install a package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #23 from Manuel Geißer --- A definitely more complex heuristic would be to somehow check whether any binary provided by a package to be updated is currently in use. If it is not, the update could be performed without reboot, but then it would be necessary to inhibit launching new applications that do depend on it until the update is finished. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #22 from Manuel Geißer --- (In reply to Harald Sitter from comment #3) > Can you outline heuristics for what requires a reboot and what does not? Hmm, is there a list of which other packages depend on a package? Then a basic heuristic would be not to require reboot for packages that are not dependencies of other (installed) packages. This would at least allow to exclude most end-user applications, like web browsers and office applications, where a reboot should not be needed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #21 from Rex Dieter --- Sorry for the noise, looks like this case was covered in dialog in other bug comments here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #20 from Rex Dieter --- Re: comment #1 "We don't have such information (to know if a restart is required or not)" PackageKit presumably does (depending on backend support of course): https://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2007/08/23/packagekit-requiring-a-restart/ Or at least it did at one time, I don't know it's current state as that post is pretty old. That said, I do agree with the general consensus that offline updates is a better option in most scenarios. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #19 from Aleix Pol --- Git commit 8464bec59dd3b05485897c97663fbe28267fc449 by Aleix Pol. Committed on 15/04/2021 at 00:50. Pushed by apol into branch 'master'. kcm: Add a configuration setting for offline updates Lets users who prefer unstable systems to rebootting keep their old ways. Lets users from distros that don't enable it by default, enable it and enjoy a more stable upgrade experience. M +8-0kcm/CMakeLists.txt A +18 -0kcm/discoversettings.kcfg A +11 -0kcm/discoversettings.kcfgc M +38 -0kcm/package/contents/ui/main.qml M +10 -0kcm/updates.cpp M +5-0kcm/updates.h https://invent.kde.org/plasma/discover/commit/8464bec59dd3b05485897c97663fbe28267fc449 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #18 from Manuel Geißer --- > They can always just get the mostly-less-annoying-but-theotetically-dangerous > behavior back again. > We can say, "well, not my responsibility then" but in that case we're still > failing at our ultimate goal of protecting these users from broken systems > post-upgrade. Yes, good point. If live updates are that risky it's probably better not to do it, because a broken system is the bigger problem than the time overhead needed at reboot. However, I personally didn't have an issue with it so far. > all others should just require restarting the service (Plasma, xwin, wayland, > audio, whatever) or simply reloading the driver Althogh I know almost nothing about the system internals, this sounds like a good idea to me, although it's probably very difficult. As far as I know, there even is some kernel livepatch service that is used for servers to avoid long reboots, so maybe something similar is theoretically possible for plasma, daemons, ..., too? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #17 from lnx...@westlot.net --- (In reply to Nate Graham from comment #16) > JFYI, we are working on a way to make this optional: > https://invent.kde.org/plasma/discover/-/merge_requests/111 Is there a way to grab the restart notification? I'd still like to suspend my system nightly, but I'd like to make a script that will notify me before suspending if there's a pending restart so I can handle what I need to and just shut down for the night. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 Nate Graham changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |INTENTIONAL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #16 from Nate Graham --- JFYI, we are working on a way to make this optional: https://invent.kde.org/plasma/discover/-/merge_requests/111 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 Nate Graham changed: What|Removed |Added CC||geisse...@gmail.com --- Comment #15 from Nate Graham --- *** Bug 435703 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #14 from Nate Graham --- > but the double restart issue I mentioned above may be something to look into Yes, maybe file a separate bug report for that. It doesn't sound right to me. > I apologize for this long rant, but your "for their own good" and "bypassing > our desire to protect them" statements triggered me. I use Linux and KDE > because it offers me the freedom to use my computer the way I want, and I'm > sure a great many users feel the same. I understand completely. However we are attempting to make a system that works for regular people, not just nerds like us. :) And we can't assume that regular people will understand these risks, even if we attempt tp educate the. I'm all in favor of choice too, and would probably advocate for offline updates to be the default UX, but disable-able for experts like you who understand the risks. Maybe this is already possible in fact, but I don't know how it would be done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #13 from lnx...@westlot.net --- (In reply to Nate Graham from comment #12) > With my "Usability & Productivity" hat on, I must point out that this is > what can happen when we annoy the users "for their own good" in a free > system. I don't care to be annoyed "for my own good", I prefer to be educated to the issues and allowed to continue if I so desire. > They can always just get the mostly-less-annoying-but-theotetically-dangerous > behavior back again. We can say, "well, not my responsibility then" but in > that case we're still failing at our ultimate goal of protecting these users > from broken systems post-upgrade. Freedom and customization is what GNU/Linux and, one would hope, KDE/Plasma is all about; or at least it used to be. > The same thing happened when we prohibited running Dolphin with sudo: people > who wanted to do it got annoyed and just used Thunar or Nemo instead, easily > bypassing our desire to protect them, and driving them away from our > software. :( I prefer MC in the console or Krusader, so never noticed the inability to run Dolphin with sudo. If I had, I most certainly would've filed a bug report. I am not a child that need to be protected from my own actions. I've was using Linux back when KDE was in it's infancy and needed to be compiled from source to use, and have more than once inadvertently broken it beyond repair (deleted the root partition type of broken). I'm well aware of what my actions can do to my system and would never blame the software for something that is clearly my own fault. Now that I understand the reasoning behind restarting with system updates, I'll be more apt to restart at days end, but the double restart issue I mentioned above may be something to look into. I prefer to suspend my system at the end of the day because not everything gets restarted and/or put back in it's previous state on a restart so it takes me a few minutes after a restart to get back to a productive state. I apologize for this long rant, but your "for their own good" and "bypassing our desire to protect them" statements triggered me. I use Linux and KDE because it offers me the freedom to use my computer the way I want, and I'm sure a great many users feel the same. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 Nate Graham changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INTENTIONAL |FIXED --- Comment #12 from Nate Graham --- (In reply to lnxusr from comment #11) > If this is really resolved with no resolution other than "just deal with > it", then perhaps it's time to use Discover only for notification of an > update and use Synaptic or aptitude to perform the actual installation. With my "Usability & Productivity" hat on, I must point out that this is what can happen when we annoy the users "for their own good" in a free system. They can always just get the mostly-less-annoying-but-theotetically-dangerous behavior back again. We can say, "well, not my responsibility then" but in that case we're still failing at our ultimate goal of protecting these users from broken systems post-upgrade. The same thing happened when we prohibited running Dolphin with sudo: people who wanted to do it got annoyed and just used Thunar or Nemo instead, easily bypassing our desire to protect them, and driving them away from our software. :( -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #11 from lnx...@westlot.net --- The last update required two restarts. The first downloaded the packages and informed me to restart. After restarting it informed me that there was a System Update and required a reboot again after I clicked Update all. It didn't download anything on the second restart as the packages were already downloaded, it just rebooted and installed the packages. It did contain a kernel update, but still should've taken only one restart. (In reply to Aleix Pol from comment #5) > No, it's not a neon issue. It probably is a PackageKit issue. And to be > honest, I don't even know if it's doable. It really should be figured out and made doable. Rebooting the system, AFAIC, should only be done for things that cannot be safely restarted (kernel updates, filesystem libraries, etc), all other's should just require restarting the service (Plasma, xwin, wayland, audio, whatever) or simply just reloading the driver. Rebooting for a simple application installation/update is absolutely ridiculous. If this is really resolved with no resolution other than "just deal with it", then perhaps it's time to use Discover only for notification of an update and use Synaptic or aptitude to perform the actual installation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 Nate Graham changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INTENTIONAL Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED --- Comment #10 from Nate Graham --- Okay. :) Expect a lot more of this conversation with users going forward though. :) It's a big change for people who have gotten used to in-place upgrades over the past 25 years. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #9 from Harald Sitter --- (In reply to Nate Graham from comment #7) > 3. Discover would consumes that information and only schedules a reboot if > it gets that information. At this point you've bricked the runtime already btw. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #8 from Harald Sitter --- (In reply to Nate Graham from comment #7) > So I suppose this would require several parts: > > 1. Somehow in the Neon/Ubuntu packaging, you would mark relevant packages > with some flag saying "this will require a reboot when it gets updated" or > something like that. That is everything surely. Every single KDE application does load plugins at runtime or talks to daemons at runtime that may go off the compatibility rails in a update. Qt styles, KIO works, KIOd, kded, kacitivitymanagerd, baloo daemon, kparts, phonon backends, and so on and so on. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #7 from Nate Graham --- So I suppose this would require several parts: 1. Somehow in the Neon/Ubuntu packaging, you would mark relevant packages with some flag saying "this will require a reboot when it gets updated" or something like that. 2. PackageKit would gain the ability to consume that information, and communicate to the app "one or more packages in this set of updates will require a reboot". 3. Discover would consumes that information and only schedules a reboot if it gets that information. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #6 from Harald Sitter --- Mind you that "yo, I need an update now, after I've done all this work" is really a guess and wrong 90% of the time. Packagekit also has no real heuristics, between plugin systems and runtime dlopen()ing literally anything may be impaired by a live upgrade. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #5 from Aleix Pol --- No, it's not a neon issue. It probably is a PackageKit issue. And to be honest, I don't even know if it's doable. But as is, PackageKit doesn't have the ability to tell us "this will need updating". It just has the ability of telling "after all these updates I've done, now an update is needed". Which doesn't help since it's only issued after the fact. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 Nate Graham changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lnx...@westlot.net --- Comment #4 from Nate Graham --- *** Bug 435623 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 --- Comment #3 from Harald Sitter --- Can you outline heuristics for what requires a reboot and what does not? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[neon] [Bug 435574] Unattended updates should only be used for packages that actually require a reboot
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435574 Nate Graham changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Discover|neon Component|discover|general CC||j...@jriddell.org, ||n...@kde.org, ||neon-b...@kde.org, ||sit...@kde.org Summary|False "System Uprade" |Unattended updates should |procedure |only be used for packages ||that actually require a ||reboot Version|5.21.4 |unspecified Assignee|lei...@leinir.dk|neon-b...@kde.org --- Comment #2 from Nate Graham --- Moving to Neon; I guess they could make that work in their packaging. I know suse's packaging is capable of knowing which packages require a reboot and which ones don't. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
