Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I understand that you guys are having fun with this. If you think this
> > is actually an issue, though, it's probably a good idea to suggest an
> > FAQ change. "Generally reliable" is a pretty lukewarm review compared to
> > the current FAQ, which doesn't mention any downsides:
> >
> > http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html
> >
> > However, some long-time project members find soft updates trustworthy:
> >
> > https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=142170287802566&w=2
> >
> > https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=142174547612722&w=2
> >
> > So a tempered warning would probably be best.
>
> Whoa there.
>
> We do not get bug reports of enough quality to determine what
> the people running into these problems are doing.
>
> Maybe they are just shooting themselves in the foot?
>
> Maybe people are using pf or ssh incorrectly and shooting themselves
> in the foot? Should we change documentation to clarify
>
> * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
> * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
> * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
> * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
> * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
> * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
> * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
>
> Come on Micheal. You could focus developer attention on improving
> software (which requires "power users" to file better bug reports).
>
> Instead, your comments here suggest developers change web pages.
> From my perspective, what I see is very frustrating.
The additional problems that come with I/O errors are inherent to soft
updates rather than bugs in their implementation, no?
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=142250784228719&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=142294185000751&w=2
