On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:38:52PM +0200, Ralf Jung wrote: > >> And at least I would prefer offline updates over my web browser crashing > >> or shell completion breaking (until re-exec of the shell to be > >> compatible with plugins). > > I would much prefer to not have to reboot the entire system and lose > > all state for the sake of a couple of userland application updates. If > > things don't work, file bugs. If the latest shiny desktop stuff can't > > cope with re-exec etc. well, then I'm glad to not be using it. :-/ > Then just not use this feature, and do your updates as you always did. > It's entirely optional, after all. This argument is either naive or disingenuous. Yes, it's an optional feature; it's also a feature that Matthias himself has said he would like unexperienced users to use. The only way that it's going to be available to unexperienced users is if it's /the default/. And if it's used by default, authors are going to blithely carry on implementing their software in a way that works badly when doing online upgrades, because everyone has agreed that this is "acceptable" - even Debian is doing it, and nobody cares more about upgrades that Debian! I understand that software (especially desktop software) not coping with online updates is an existing problem. The question is whether we - collectively - think moving to offline updates is an acceptable way to address this problem. And the time to raise that question is now, /before/ it becomes an entrenched assumption and leaves our users with no choice but to use it because their desktops become unusably broken if you apply package updates while they're running. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature