[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>>> case where the user either invokes the updatemanger but decides not to >>>>> perform an update, or installs software that doesn't require a reboot? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> In both of these cases the user will not receive a notification until they >>>> next log in (and restart updatemanagernotifier). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> It seems like we ought to continue to check for new updates in both of >>>>> these cases. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> We will reconsider this. >>>> >>>> >>> This is my primary concern. Not all updates will require a reboot. It >>> seems like we ought to continue to check for updates if we successfully >>> installed the available updates but weren't required to reboot. >>> >>> >> I believe currently, UpdateManager only allows a image-update, and not >> an install of specific package upgrades. This means that currently, a >> reboot will be required after update. While both of these behaviors will >> change in the future, I'm not certain that the current UMN behavior is >> incorrect given those constraints. >> > > I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, but this also seems a bit > simplistic. I would imagine that some users would like to be able to > choose what packages they update. The neat thing about having GUI > interface to the updates is that they could actually do this pretty > simply, whereas installing a subset of the updated packages is a bit > more tricky using the CLI. I suppose that was why we introduced > image-update to begin with, but perhaps I'm wrong. > > I certainly agree with you, but currently, that's not the available functionality, so I can understand designing deciding to put that issue off until later. Of course, canceling UM shouldn't mean that you no longer get notified of updates either, so it might just be easier to do it right now.
Brock > -j > > _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
