On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 16:35 -0800, Eystein Måløy Stenberg wrote: > On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 10:45 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 10:01 +0100, Stefano Babic wrote: > > > Hi Patrick, > > > > > > On 30/11/2016 15:59, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > I have seen Mariano added an entry for SWUpdate, too, thanks - I would > > > like to edit for better explanation on some parts. Should I try to edit > > > directly the page or is it better to discuss it here ? > > > > Use your own judgment. If its uncontroversial, the feel free to edit the > > page directly, otherwise let's discuss it here. > > > > If feel that putting information directly into the table is too limiting > > (it should be brief), then feel free to start a complete section about > > SWUpdate. > > > > I'll do the same for swupd. Editing the sections should be possible > > without conflicts, we just have to be more careful about editing the > > table concurrently. > > I updated the Mender part of the wiki now that the stable version Mender > 1.0 is released. These changes should not be controversial, but let me > know if you disagree. We are planning to keep the Mender section > up-to-date as we release new versions, as I think this is what you expect.
Yes, that's useful. > Are there any plans for next steps or is the wiki the "final state" in > terms of integrating OTA updates in Yocto/OE? My own conclusion is that it is impossible to integrate a specific OTA update into Yocto/OE (because there's no single solution that fits all requirements) and/or it would be unfair to those solutions that don't get such special testing. In that sense the Wiki page is the final result of the investigation. Anyone interested in picking a solution can go there, consider the pros and cons, and then make a choice. However, I see room for some collaborative work that then can happen in Yocto/OE: * carrying local system configuration changes across system updates: I find it promising to investigate the "stateless" concept and have started some exploratory work, see https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Stateless#Status_and_goals_for_.22stateless.22_in_Yocto (more on that soon) * supporting UEFI-based machines In contrast to Yocto/OE, the IoT Reference OS Kit can (and in a way, has to) make some choices because it needs a functional solution out of the box. My current thinking there is to support one file-based (OSTree?) and one block-based (Mender.io?) solution, the block-based one perhaps combined with dm-verity. -- 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