-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:56:00 +0200
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> On 10/22/2014 09:07 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
> > the important point in that case is not reboot after upgrading
> > Firefox but*before* upgrading Firefox, which means that at the
> > time of
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:35:00PM +0100, Ian Malone wrote:
> On 22 October 2014 20:07, Michael Stahl wrote:
> > On 17.09.2014 13:58, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> >> On 09/17/2014 11:54 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >>> All those OSes require reboots when updating the OS.
> >>
> >> Define OS.
> >>
> >> F
On 10/24/2014 12:59 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
853 must be close to
every package on your box...
Nope.
$ rpm -qa |wc -l
4337
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedor
Am 24.10.2014 um 12:02 schrieb Mathieu Bridon:
On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 12:00 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
I'm not updating daily. I upgraded my machine IIRC 2-3 weeks ago. So lets
benchmark it and provide you real data.
My machine have classic magnetic disk, however in SW RAID1.
Timing cache
On 24 October 2014 11:00, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> I run "dnf upgrade" and I have been offered 853 packages and 1.3 GB to
> download.
I'm pretty sure F21 for the last few weeks is not representative of a
normal installed system over a 2 week period. 853 must be close to
every package on your box..
On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 12:00 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> I'm not updating daily. I upgraded my machine IIRC 2-3 weeks ago. So lets
> benchmark it and provide you real data.
>
> My machine have classic magnetic disk, however in SW RAID1.
> Timing cached reads: 12236 MB in 2.00 seconds = 612
On 10/23/2014 12:57 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
The upgrade can last one hour (more or less).
An hour?! Most of my offline updates take a few tens of seconds with
F21. Is this on fairly up-to-date SSD hardware? Are any specific
packages taking longer than the others?
an hour was surely exaggerat
Am 23.10.2014 um 12:52 schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:43:29AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 23 October 2014 09:56, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
The upgrade can last one hour (more or less).
An hour?! Most of my offline updates take a few tens of seconds with
F21. Is this
Am 23.10.2014 um 12:43 schrieb Richard Hughes:
On 23 October 2014 09:56, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
The upgrade can last one hour (more or less).
An hour?! Most of my offline updates take a few tens of seconds with
F21. Is this on fairly up-to-date SSD hardware? Are any specific
packages taking l
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:43:29AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 23 October 2014 09:56, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > The upgrade can last one hour (more or less).
>
> An hour?! Most of my offline updates take a few tens of seconds with
> F21. Is this on fairly up-to-date SSD hardware? Are any sp
On 23 October 2014 09:56, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> The upgrade can last one hour (more or less).
An hour?! Most of my offline updates take a few tens of seconds with
F21. Is this on fairly up-to-date SSD hardware? Are any specific
packages taking longer than the others?
Richard
--
devel mailing
On 10/22/2014 09:07 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
the important point in that case is not reboot after upgrading Firefox
but*before* upgrading Firefox, which means that at the time of the
upgrade no Firefox will be running and potentially crashing because one
of the 100s of DSOs it loads on-demand ha
On 22 October 2014 20:07, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 17.09.2014 13:58, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>> On 09/17/2014 11:54 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>> All those OSes require reboots when updating the OS.
>>
>> Define OS.
>>
>> Firefox is definitely not OS. While systemd is OS.
>> I am fine with reboot a
On 17.09.2014 13:58, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> On 09/17/2014 11:54 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> All those OSes require reboots when updating the OS.
>
> Define OS.
>
> Firefox is definitely not OS. While systemd is OS.
> I am fine with reboot after systemd upgrade, but not after upgrading Firefox.
On 10/22/2014 10:58, drago01 wrote:
No the OS is more than just a kernel.
Kernel Space contains more than just the kernel. It also contains
device drivers, kernel extensions, and other privileged processes that
require full system access. User Space exists as a barrier to keep
applications
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Tom Rivers wrote:
> On 10/22/2014 06:31, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>
>> It would be great if we could nicely isolate the apps from the OS so that
>> we can restart the apps independently from the OS, but this requires
>> isolating things first.
>
>
> Isn't the dif
On 10/22/2014 06:31, Lennart Poettering wrote:
It would be great if we could nicely isolate the apps from the OS so
that we can restart the apps independently from the OS, but this
requires isolating things first.
Isn't the differentiation between kernel space and user space sufficient
for id
On 22 October 2014 04:31, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 17.09.14 13:58, Miroslav Suchý (msu...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > On 09/17/2014 11:54 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > >All those OSes require reboots when updating the OS.
> >
> > Define OS.
> >
> > Firefox is definitely not OS. While syst
On Wed, 22.10.14 14:11, Roberto Ragusa (m...@robertoragusa.it) wrote:
> On 10/21/2014 10:02 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> > Maybe
> > that's actually a strategy to adopt here: upload the encryption keys
> > into the firmware as efi vars, and then pull them out on next boots or
> > so (assumin
On 10/21/2014 10:02 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Maybe
> that's actually a strategy to adopt here: upload the encryption keys
> into the firmware as efi vars, and then pull them out on next boots or
> so (assuming that efi vars can be marked to survive soft reboots
> without making them fully p
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:48:59AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> >Offline updates are more for the cases where things need to be
> >reliable, because no well educated admin is available to instantly
> >fix things.
>
> I will print it an pin up on my notice board.
>
> And the implication is that
On Wed, 17.09.14 13:58, Miroslav Suchý (msu...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 09/17/2014 11:54 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >All those OSes require reboots when updating the OS.
>
> Define OS.
>
> Firefox is definitely not OS. While systemd is OS.
> I am fine with reboot after systemd upgrade, but not a
On Tue, 16.09.14 13:35, Petr Pisar (ppi...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 2014-09-16, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > The much bigger issues is if you're using a D-Bus service
> > like most applications seem to do (and most use quite a few system and
> > session, directly and indirectly) then you've also got
On 10/21/2014 10:08 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Offline updates are more for the cases where things need to be
reliable, because no well educated admin is available to instantly fix
things.
I will print it an pin up on my notice board.
And the implication is that offline updates are not for
Am 21.10.2014 um 22:08 schrieb Lennart Poettering:
On Fri, 12.09.14 18:37, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote:
1 out of a million cases needs offline updates
really - the only good at it is that you can stick
at using YUM and decide what you have to do at your
own - rarely updates r
On Fri, 12.09.14 18:37, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote:
>
> Am 12.09.2014 um 18:33 schrieb Nathanael d. Noblet:
> > So I don't use Firefox anymore but I do know back in the day if we had
> > FF open when we updated it would do a double request for each page/form.
> > However when up
On Fri, 12.09.14 10:46, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote:
> It is very common for users to have systems with encrypted root
> partitions (or even just /var and /etc). This may be due to a
> personal
Nitpicking: we currently do not support split-off /etc on
Fedora/Dracut. /var may be
On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 11:26 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 07:53 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 10:46 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > == The Problem ==
> > >
> > > It is very common for users to have systems with encrypte
On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 07:53 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 10:46 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > == The Problem ==
> >
> > It is very common for users to have systems with encrypted root
> > partitions (or even just /var and /etc). This may be due to a persona
On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 10:46 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> == The Problem ==
>
> It is very common for users to have systems with encrypted root
> partitions (or even just /var and /etc). This may be due to a personal
> concern for their data or a corporate policy mandating full-disk
> encry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/16/2014 04:02 PM, Lukáš Tinkl wrote:
> Dne 16.9.2014 v 17:29 Matthias Clasen napsal(a):
>> On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 16:21 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Has Fedora given up Unix ??
>>
>> This thread has gone quite far out into the weeds.
On 09/17/2014 11:54 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
All those OSes require reboots when updating the OS.
Define OS.
Firefox is definitely not OS. While systemd is OS.
I am fine with reboot after systemd upgrade, but not after upgrading Firefox.
And there we have lots of packages in between those tw
- Original Message -
> Dne 16.9.2014 v 17:29 Matthias Clasen napsal(a):
> > On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 16:21 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Has Fedora given up Unix ??
> >
> > This thread has gone quite far out into the weeds. It started with a
> > fairly concrete question: can we
Dne 16.9.2014 v 17:29 Matthias Clasen napsal(a):
On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 16:21 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
Has Fedora given up Unix ??
This thread has gone quite far out into the weeds. It started with a
fairly concrete question: can we improve the offline update experience
by requiring only
Dne 16.9.2014 v 17:36 Miloslav Trmač napsal(a):
- Original Message -
2. Ability to detect which processes depend on which versions of which
components.
We already managed to brought in systemd
I can’t see how systemd helps. See the other discussions about Python/Ruby
modules tha
- Original Message -
> Dne 16.9.2014 v 17:08 Miloslav Trmač napsal(a):
> > - Original Message -
> >>> Well, what we would need is:
> >>> 1. Ability to keep multiple versions (both ABI-compatible and
> >>> ABI-incompatible) of a single application or library or service installed
> >>
On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 16:21 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>
> Has Fedora given up Unix ??
This thread has gone quite far out into the weeds. It started with a
fairly concrete question: can we improve the offline update experience
by requiring only a single reboot, instead of two ?
I'd still be i
Dne 16.9.2014 v 17:08 Miloslav Trmač napsal(a):
- Original Message -
Well, what we would need is:
1. Ability to keep multiple versions (both ABI-compatible and
ABI-incompatible) of a single application or library or service installed
and running at the same time.
Other distributions al
- Original Message -
> > Well, what we would need is:
> > 1. Ability to keep multiple versions (both ABI-compatible and
> > ABI-incompatible) of a single application or library or service installed
> > and running at the same time.
>
> Other distributions allow to install multiple version
Dne 16.9.2014 v 16:39 Miloslav Trmač napsal(a):
- Original Message -
Dne 16.9.2014 v 12:21 Richard Hughes napsal(a):
On 16 September 2014 10:55, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
Just a thought - but wouldn't be better spend time to enlighten
Gnome/Firefox developers how to write applications in
- Original Message -
> Dne 16.9.2014 v 12:21 Richard Hughes napsal(a):
> > On 16 September 2014 10:55, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> >> Just a thought - but wouldn't be better spend time to enlighten
> >> Gnome/Firefox developers how to write applications in a way the could be
> >> upgraded runt
Dne 16.9.2014 v 12:21 Richard Hughes napsal(a):
On 16 September 2014 10:55, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
Just a thought - but wouldn't be better spend time to enlighten
Gnome/Firefox developers how to write applications in a way the could be
upgraded runtime
So, it's not just the application, it's e
On 2014-09-16, Richard Hughes wrote:
> The much bigger issues is if you're using a D-Bus service
> like most applications seem to do (and most use quite a few system and
> session, directly and indirectly) then you've also got to co-ordinate
> and handle changing D-Bus API (which typically isn't v
On 16 September 2014 13:29, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
> OK, but this is means that we painted ourselves in the corner---something is
> wrong if my Android phone, which I don't have to reboot for updates, has
> higher uptime than my computer.
Right, we certainly have. By not having an OS / app lay
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
> On 09/16/2014 06:33 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> I've triaged many bugs to do with online and offline update failures, and
> if we're going to say that we actually care about the users data, it becomes
> increasingly hard to defend the
On 09/16/2014 06:33 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
I've triaged many bugs to do with online and offline update failures,
and if we're going to say that we actually care about the users data,
it becomes increasingly hard to defend the "old" way of doing it. I'm
sure I could find numerous bugs numbers
On 16 September 2014 11:26, Reindl Harald wrote:
> and the other side of the story are some hundret dist-upgrades i
> made in the past years with YUM (in a screen session for safety)
> while just continue to browse the web and read / answer email
So you're saying my technical analysis is incorrec
Am 16.09.2014 um 12:21 schrieb Richard Hughes:
> On 16 September 2014 10:55, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>> Just a thought - but wouldn't be better spend time to enlighten
>> Gnome/Firefox developers how to write applications in a way the could be
>> upgraded runtime
>
> So, it's not just the applicat
On 16 September 2014 10:55, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> Just a thought - but wouldn't be better spend time to enlighten
> Gnome/Firefox developers how to write applications in a way the could be
> upgraded runtime
So, it's not just the application, it's every application and D-Bus
service the applica
Dne 16.9.2014 v 11:48 Richard Hughes napsal(a):
On 16 September 2014 10:36, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
If applications would just use libraries correctly, the kernel
would be able to let parts of deleted files be available for lazy
loading.
Sure, as long as all[1] the resources were either open()d
On 16 September 2014 10:36, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> If applications would just use libraries correctly, the kernel
> would be able to let parts of deleted files be available for lazy
> loading.
Sure, as long as all[1] the resources were either open()d when the
user started the program, or linked
On 09/12/2014 05:47 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> That's just not safe. Have you ever had firefox open and done a
> firefox update? Widgets start disappearing, redraws start having weird
> artifects and then after a little while it just crashes. Other
> applications like LibreOffice behave the same.
Am 16.09.2014 um 10:50 schrieb Richard Hughes:
> On 15 September 2014 13:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>> But *I* do not want to reboot after each upgrade. Those crashes will be
>> 0.1% of all crashes on my workstation
>
> I think you might change your mind when it's you're the one that has
> to
On 15 September 2014 13:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> But *I* do not want to reboot after each upgrade. Those crashes will be
> 0.1% of all crashes on my workstation
I think you might change your mind when it's you're the one that has
to triage those ABRT-reported bugs. Also, consoling users wi
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 04:07:39PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 15.9.2014 14:28, Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:57:13AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >> Every of the script is based on assumption that you already read some
> >> library/unit whatever. But that is not e
Dne 15.9.2014 14:28, Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:57:13AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Every of the script is based on assumption that you already read some
>> library/unit whatever. But that is not enough. I wonder how you want to
>> detect that you need restart in ca
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 02:49:34PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 15.09.2014 um 14:44 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 02:40:34PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 15.09.2014 um 14:28 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:57:13AM +0200, V
Am 15.09.2014 um 14:44 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 02:40:34PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 15.09.2014 um 14:28 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:57:13AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
1) I run some application, which loads my foo.rb file.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 02:40:34PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 15.09.2014 um 14:28 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:57:13AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >> 1) I run some application, which loads my foo.rb file.
> >> 2) I later update the package which removes bar.rb
Am 15.09.2014 um 14:28 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:57:13AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> 1) I run some application, which loads my foo.rb file.
>> 2) I later update the package which removes bar.rb file.
>> 3) And I call some_function which fails due to missing bar.rb
>
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:57:13AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Every of the script is based on assumption that you already read some
> library/unit whatever. But that is not enough. I wonder how you want to
> detect that you need restart in case that I have something like this:
>
> $ ls
> foo.rb
On 09/15/2014 10:57 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Every of the script is based on assumption that you already read some
library/unit whatever. But that is not enough. I wonder how you want to
detect that you need restart in case that I have something like this:
$ ls
foo.rb
bar.rb
$ cat foo.rb
def som
Every of the script is based on assumption that you already read some
library/unit whatever. But that is not enough. I wonder how you want to
detect that you need restart in case that I have something like this:
$ ls
foo.rb
bar.rb
$ cat foo.rb
def some_function
require 'bar'
end
And now
1) I
On 09/15/2014 10:06 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
It wasn't clear to me how tracer works for non-C programs.
https://github.com/FrostyX/tracer/commit/4abfc4ecbc6d1d4cd89b7162e1ba3f63088db3ff
Which basicaly checkout output of `ps` and if there is e.g. python as
executable, it will check for ar
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:50:36AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> On 09/12/2014 07:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >never worked relieable here on multiple machines
> >
> >it often showed nothing where i knew the thing
> >which should be restarted without looking and
> >"lsof" proved it
>
> I am one
On 09/12/2014 07:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
never worked relieable here on multiple machines
it often showed nothing where i knew the thing
which should be restarted without looking and
"lsof" proved it
I am one of those guys who refuse to reboot after each upgrade (and it works for me) and n
the keys are in kernelspace IIRC and thus updated / passed on initrd
/initramfs updates and kernel updates
Corey W Sheldon
Freelance IT Consultant, Multi-Discipline Tutor
310.909.7672
www.facebook.com/1stclassmobileshine
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 09/13/2014 03:59
On 09/13/2014 03:59 AM, Fred New wrote:
> One step up from this would be something like a kpatch process in rpm
> combined with packaged metadata that replaces in-memory modules so that
> reboots wouldn't be necessary. Yeh, probably impossible.
This has almost certainly already been considered by
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Chris Murphy
wrote:
>
> On Sep 12, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> > The *only* way to do this
> > securely and safely in the system we have now is in a clean pre-boot
> > environment,
>
> Mostly clean post-boot environment, with the system we have no
On Sep 12, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> The *only* way to do this
> securely and safely in the system we have now is in a clean pre-boot
> environment,
Mostly clean post-boot environment, with the system we have now?
> What we could do is do updates on shutdown by basically killin
Am 12.09.2014 um 23:36 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:33:13AM -0600, Nathanael d. Noblet wrote:
>> I am curious though. Everyone says the only way to do it securely and
>> safely is with nothing running. Why can't updates be applied with stuff
>> running prior to a reboot
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:33:13AM -0600, Nathanael d. Noblet wrote:
> I am curious though. Everyone says the only way to do it securely and
> safely is with nothing running. Why can't updates be applied with stuff
> running prior to a reboot?
There's no reason, apart from the kernel. You're doi
Am 12.09.2014 um 18:58 schrieb Till Maas:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 06:37:07PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> * lsof | grep DEL | grep /usr and restart services on servers
>
> There is a convenient script called "needs-restarting" to do this.
> Checkrestart on debian even suggest potential in
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 06:37:07PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> * lsof | grep DEL | grep /usr and restart services on servers
There is a convenient script called "needs-restarting" to do this.
Checkrestart on debian even suggest potential init scripts that can be
used to restart the services.
--
On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 16:47 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 12 September 2014 16:16, Nathanael d. Noblet wrote:
> > Yeah, I almost never use the reboot & install method. 90% of the
> > packages being installed/updated seem foolish to need a reboot to
> > update.
>
> I've been called worse that
Am 12.09.2014 um 18:33 schrieb Nathanael d. Noblet:
> So I don't use Firefox anymore but I do know back in the day if we had
> FF open when we updated it would do a double request for each page/form.
> However when updating we just restarted FF and it would work fine after
> that. I've never notic
On 12 September 2014 16:16, Nathanael d. Noblet wrote:
> Yeah, I almost never use the reboot & install method. 90% of the
> packages being installed/updated seem foolish to need a reboot to
> update.
I've been called worse that foolish I guess...
> I typically do a yum update manually and then i
On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 10:46 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> == Proposed Improvements ==
>
> We could significantly improve this situation by allowing the system
> to drop directly from the interactive system into the updater
> environment without doing a full reboot or relaunching the kernel.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
== The Problem ==
It is very common for users to have systems with encrypted root
partitions (or even just /var and /etc). This may be due to a personal
concern for their data or a corporate policy mandating full-disk
encryption. Disk encryption requi
79 matches
Mail list logo
