Re: [yocto] update mechanisms (was: Re: [meta-swupd][PATCH] bsdiff: update to latest version)
On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 10:26 +, André Draszik wrote: > On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 08:42 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 17:19 +, André Draszik wrote: > > > I liked swupd for its ability to be used both for initial provisioning > > > > You mean installing from the update repository? That's something that > > Clear Linux OS can do with their installer, but nothing like that has > > been tried with a Yocto-based build. That doesn't mean that it can't be > > done, it's just work. > > Yes. In our case we can only provision the NOR flash in the factory (which > is too small for the real file system), so I have the swupd-client inside a > small initramfs in NOR flash, and from there I can provision NAND flash > using swupd verify -i Interesting, I hadn't thought of using it like that. When doing this, does it download the "from-0" pack files? "swupd bundle-add" uses those; I'm less sure about verify. It would have to detect that it misses all files from the os-core bundle and then as a special optimization get the pack file instead of individual files. Speaking of bundles, is that concept something that you find useful for your purposes? It's not strictly needed for a pure system update mechanism. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] update mechanisms (was: Re: [meta-swupd][PATCH] bsdiff: update to latest version)
On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 08:42 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 17:19 +, André Draszik wrote: > > I liked swupd for its ability to be used both for initial provisioning > > You mean installing from the update repository? That's something that > Clear Linux OS can do with their installer, but nothing like that has > been tried with a Yocto-based build. That doesn't mean that it can't be > done, it's just work. Yes. In our case we can only provision the NOR flash in the factory (which is too small for the real file system), so I have the swupd-client inside a small initramfs in NOR flash, and from there I can provision NAND flash using swupd verify -i All yocto based, but in its current state not in a generally useful shape for a wider audience. > > as > > well as for incremental updates. The latter being important when you > > have > > *loads* of devices, where it doesn't seem to make sense to download a > > full > > image for a tiny change to each device (think cellular!), > > That's indeed one of the strengths of swupd. OSTree comes close in terms > of some key characteristics (file-based, persistent /etc and /var). It > would be interesting to know how efficient updating via OSTree is. True. A. -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] update mechanisms (was: Re: [meta-swupd][PATCH] bsdiff: update to latest version)
On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 15:59 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 14:31 +, André Draszik wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 12:04 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 12:03 +, André Draszik wrote: > > > > This allows us to completely remove the build time > > > > depenency on libcheck when not needed, reducing > > > > overall build time, and in addition tests can be > > > > converted into a PACKAGECONFIG to enable them if > > > > needed. > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > Sorry for the delay, I had to check with Joshua first who's going to > > > merge your patches. I'm currently working on a major update of > > > meta-swupd (see https://github.com/ostroproject/ostro-os/pull/198) and > > > if there's enough interest for using it as part of Yocto, might > > > continue > > > maintaining it. > > > > Thanks Patrick. Are you saying you would otherwise abandon meta-swupd > > completely, or have it be a part of ostro-os only? > > That's undecided. We are currently trying to figure out which update > mechanism is a good fit for Yocto. Depending on the outcome of that and > available resources, we may or may not have the time to support > something. > > I've started a Wiki page > https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/System_Update - rudimentary at the > moment, but might as well be mentioned already now. > > Perhaps you can say a few words about your usage of swupd and what you > liked or didn't like about it? Note that performance will become better > with the upcoming update. In the wiki or here? I'll be out for the next week, but when I come back I will write some more. BTW, you probably know this: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/automotive-discussions/2016-May/002061.html I liked swupd for its ability to be used both for initial provisioning as well as for incremental updates. The latter being important when you have *loads* of devices, where it doesn't seem to make sense to download a full image for a tiny change to each device (think cellular!), the former streamlining the update mechanism, so that not two different independent things have to be maintained. Cheers, Andre' -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] update mechanisms (was: Re: [meta-swupd][PATCH] bsdiff: update to latest version)
On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 14:31 +, André Draszik wrote: > On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 12:04 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 12:03 +, André Draszik wrote: > > > This allows us to completely remove the build time > > > depenency on libcheck when not needed, reducing > > > overall build time, and in addition tests can be > > > converted into a PACKAGECONFIG to enable them if > > > needed. > > > > +1 > > > > Sorry for the delay, I had to check with Joshua first who's going to > > merge your patches. I'm currently working on a major update of > > meta-swupd (see https://github.com/ostroproject/ostro-os/pull/198) and > > if there's enough interest for using it as part of Yocto, might continue > > maintaining it. > > Thanks Patrick. Are you saying you would otherwise abandon meta-swupd > completely, or have it be a part of ostro-os only? That's undecided. We are currently trying to figure out which update mechanism is a good fit for Yocto. Depending on the outcome of that and available resources, we may or may not have the time to support something. I've started a Wiki page https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/System_Update - rudimentary at the moment, but might as well be mentioned already now. Perhaps you can say a few words about your usage of swupd and what you liked or didn't like about it? Note that performance will become better with the upcoming update. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
