Philip Hands <p...@hands.com> writes: > Is it not the case that we're actually witnessing is:
> Option e): get updates applied only at reboot, with no prior > notification that they are available, such that people who always > suspend, or simply leave systems running all the time get no updates > until something bad happens, and they suffer a forced reboot. > Consequences: Unexpected changes of behaviour which will give a false > impression of being caused by reboots, leading to the impression that > Debian cannot be trusted to maintain behaviour between boots. Often > out of date system. Corrosive loss of user confidence, since they'll > feel like they're not in charge A steady trickle of irrelevant bugs. That this would happen with no prior notification or user approval is absolutely a bug, which I believe everyone involved in this thread has agreed about. I think I saw a message go by indicating that the bug was already located and fixed. Can we take a step back here and figure out what we're still arguing about? I'm wondering if we may all be in vigorous agreement, except for some disagreement over whether we like the GNOME UI for asking the user whether they want this behavior. I personally have some problems with how the GNOME UI interacts with the user, which is part of why I, er, don't use GNOME. But is there a significant bug left here, or are we now just debating whether GNOME gives the user enough warning and enough opportunity to turn this off? I ask because that's a different sort of bug than a bug in system services that could cause bad upgrades to happen without any warning. In particular, I think it's been pretty well-established in this thread that the only involvement systemd has in the whole affair is making available a mechanism for upgrade on reboot that GNOME is (so far as I'm aware) the only consumer of, thus making the subject line a bit misleading. I'm happy to let the systemd packagers decide whether it makes sense to package that with systemd or separately; any bugs of sufficient urgency to warrant a debate on debian-devel seem, to me at least, to be in whatever makes use of that infrastructure without giving the user enough advanced warning. Which, to repeat, appear to have already been identified and fixed? -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
