Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: Automatic Updates - Is Apper as useless as Packageit was?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, Ca, USA
    Posts
    12,153
    Blog Entries
    2

    Unhappy Automatic Updates - Is Apper as useless as Packageit was?

    After a week or so after my upgrade from 11.3 > 12.1,

    I've again found that there is no substitution for "zypper up" -- Whenever I use zypper, it still consistently finds packages that need updating that the official "automatic" updaters don't.

    Zypper updates <everything> that's on the system, why couldn't Packagekit and now Apper perform to that level?

    IMO nothing less should be expected from an automatic updater than inspecting and maintaining <everything> on the system, or is that opinion somehow faulty? And, considering how well zypper maintains and updates all packages on the system, is there a reason why it isn't <the> official updater?

    TS

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    25,547

    Default Re: Automatic Updates - Is Apper as useless as Packageit was?

    On 2012-03-01 03:46, tsu2 wrote:

    > IMO nothing less should be expected from an automatic updater than
    > inspecting and maintaining <everything> on the system, or is that
    > opinion somehow faulty? And, considering how well zypper maintains and
    > updates all packages on the system, is there a reason why it isn't <the>
    > official updater?


    Hum, no, I would not expect more from those updaters than the equivalent to
    a zypper patch, not a zypper up.

    And as to why zypper is not the default one, well, it is up to you to use
    it, but these new apps intend that the plain user can run the update if the
    task is delegated from root, without having to use the root password (using
    policy kit, I think). Zypper can not do that unless you configure sudo in a
    certain way which is not the default way.

    --
    Cheers / Saludos,

    Carlos E. R.
    (from 11.4 x86_64 "Celadon" at Telcontar)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Earth - Denmark
    Posts
    10,730

    Default Re: Automatic Updates - Is Apper as useless as Packageit was?

    On 03/01/2012 03:46 AM, tsu2 wrote:
    > IMO nothing less should be expected from an automatic updater than
    > inspecting and maintaining <everything> on the system, or is that
    > opinion somehow faulty?


    there are many situations and circumstances where an administrator would
    not wish to constantly be changing <everything> available to be changed!

    for example, there are people, situations, workplaces etc which can
    thrive _only_ with a system which is stable, predictable, reliable and
    secure..

    now, maybe that does not describe _your_ individual needs or how you
    want your system to be...but, it certainly describes many folks' desire
    on their daily driver...you know, the one they depend on at school, or
    work, or maybe they just depend on to be usable when the wanna call Aunt
    Tillie on Skype...or wanna jump into WoW for a few days of fun..

    so, the YaST Online Updater was years ago tuned up to NOT change every
    possible thing that can be changed...but, rather to only change those
    things the developers place in _one_ repo, the update repo...where are
    placed security patches and major bug fixes....only.

    ymmv, but it has been my experience over the years that using only YaST
    Online Update, while having only four repos enabled (oss, non-oss,
    update and packman) usually results in a stable machine..

    unfortunately though it seems the further away we get from SuSE 9 the
    less stable is the system...(but, that is a different thread)

    so, the zypper equal to YaST Online Update is "zypper patch" and not the
    potential stability killer "zypper up"...now, there is absolutely
    nothing wrong with "zypper up" if you have been thoughtful and
    responsible with the repos enabled and refreshed....but, if you have not
    paid attention there then a "zypper up" (or "switch vendor" in YaST
    Software Manager) is kinda like putting a bullet in the gun, spinning
    the cylinder and pulling the trigger . . .

    so, to answer your question: no, your opinion is not faulty for
    you...and, my opinion is not faulty for me....but, you should understand
    that your opinion does _not_ fit all situations and all machines..

    and i really really hope 'they' never make so that everytime any Linux
    developer anywhere commits new code to his/her stable tree that _my_
    system changes if i run its "automatic updater"!!

    --
    DD
    What does DistroWatch write about YOU?: http://tinyurl.com/SUSEonDW

  4. #4
    Vahis NNTP User

    Default Re: Automatic Updates - Is Apper as useless as Packageit was?

    DenverD wrote:

    > paid attention there then a "zypper up" (or "switch vendor" in YaST
    > Software Manager) is kinda like putting a bullet in the gun, spinning
    > the cylinder and pulling the trigger . . .


    'zypper up' does not allow vendor change.
    'zypper dup' does.

    Vahis
    --
    http://waxborg.servepics.com
    openSUSE 11.4 (x86_64) 2.6.37.6-0.11-default main host
    openSUSE 12.1 (x86_64) 3.2.7-9-desktop Tumbleweed in VirtualBox
    openSUSE 12.1 (i586) 3.1.9-1.4-desktop in EeePC 900

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Earth - Denmark
    Posts
    10,730

    Default Re: Automatic Updates - Is Apper as useless as Packageit was?

    On 03/01/2012 05:07 PM, Vahis wrote:
    > 'zypper up' does not allow vendor change.
    > 'zypper dup' does.


    thanks...and, glad to see you here..

    --
    DD
    What does DistroWatch write about YOU?: http://tinyurl.com/SUSEonDW

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, Ca, USA
    Posts
    12,153
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Automatic Updates - Is Apper as useless as Packageit was?

    Thx all for the inputs.
    And, if my language "useless" is a bit much, I apologize since Apper's really not useless particularly if it does exactly what it's designed to do.

    That's interesting to me that apper and packagekit behave as they do by design.

    1. Re: zypper up and vendor change issue, this is from the zypper man pages

    update (up) [options] [packagename] ...
    Update installed packages with newer versions, where possible.

    This command will not update packages which would require change of package
    vendor unless the vendor is specified in /etc/zypp/vendors.d, or which would
    require manual resolution of problems with dependencies. Such non-installable
    updates will then be listed in separate section of the summary as "The follow-
    ing package updates will NOT be installed:".

    To update individual packages, specify one or more package names. You can use
    the '*' and '?' wildcard characters in the package names to specify multiple
    packages matching the pattern.
    So, it seems that zypper up will not update a package given various possible reasons, and one reason is when there is a vendor change and is not explicitly listed for updating (in vendors.d).


    2. I spent some time considering reasons for updating and patching instead of updating, and although I cannot find an explicit definition for each anywhere (including the MAN pages), I assume that "updating" means replacing with a newer version whereas patching means maintaining the existing version of a package.

    Although a case can easily be made for simply patching and not updating, I strongly feel that today the default behavior should be to update all for the following reasons:

    - As fast as vulnerabilities and exploits appear nowadays, it's usually safer to utilize the latest which oftentimes means removing and adding features, not just plugging holes. Yes, sometimes it's safer or required to lock a specific version, but those situations should be the exceptions, not the rule... And, if you find yourself in this situation it's a strong warning to expect some kind of EOL.

    - For the majority of less sophisticated users, ie Home Users, Hobbyists, newbies migrating from Windows, etc., they should expect a system as secure and functional as possible by default, so updating <everything> should be expected and be the default so that the application or components are of latest design. Yes, this seems to put a high burden on getting dependencies correct, but isn't this generally the case?

    - It seems that both updating and patching don't have an easy way to roll back changes, probably requiring a manual uninstall followed by re-install specifying a legacy version, so there doesn't seem to be an advantage to either if a change has to be undone. As to how much more risky an update is compared to a patch, it's difficult to hazard a guess considering that updates are supposed to be stable by default. BTW - if this really true, I hope that some kind of rollback is in a roadmap.

    In the meantime, because proper patching and updating is critical to both system performance and security, IMO Users should be at least explicitly educated on their options, particularly if the default behavior only addresses most basic system patches and does nothing to ensure the integrity of applications they have installed... leaving massive potential security and performance issues if unaddressed.

    If this kind of decision (to apply updates by default) is too momentous a decision, I'd suggest that the User should still be offered an option to configure for updates or patching(include a description of each option), and better yet to track that User decision and whether it causes unexpected problems later or not. I'd guess that this wouldn't take more than a very few lines of relatively simple code, particularly if the underlying engines are already proven and reliable.

    IMHO,
    TS

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Earth - Denmark
    Posts
    10,730

    Default Re: Automatic Updates - Is Apper as useless as Packageit was?

    On 03/02/2012 11:16 PM, tsu2 wrote:
    > Apper's really not useless particularly if it does exactly what it's designed to
    > do.


    Apper is a KDE product which conflicts with YaST/Zypper...how it works
    with apt or yum i have no idea...

    do not use apper on openSUSE--disable it or uninstall it.

    of course, all are free to ignore that advice...just be prepared to fix
    your messed up system....sooner or later.

    --
    DD
    What does DistroWatch write about YOU?: http://tinyurl.com/SUSEonDW

  8. #8

    Default Re: Automatic Updates - Is Apper as useless as Packageit was?

    Quote Originally Posted by DenverD View Post
    On 03/02/2012 11:16 PM, tsu2 wrote:
    > Apper's really not useless particularly if it does exactly what it's designed to
    > do.


    Apper is a KDE product which conflicts with YaST/Zypper...how it works
    with apt or yum i have no idea...
    If apper conflicts with zypper, YaST conflicts with zypper as well, as you can only run one of them at the same time. Conclusion, your claim is wrong. Even more so since apper is just a frontend to packagekit and packagekit uses zypper as backend. I hope you can do the maths…

    Most issues people have with apper are acutally zypp backend bugs. Sorry to destroy the illusion.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    25,547

    Default Re: Automatic Updates - Is Apper as useless as Packageit was?

    On 2012-03-09 01:06, rabauke wrote:
    > Most issues people have with apper are acutally zypp backend bugs.


    No, they are packagekit bugs.

    --
    Cheers / Saludos,

    Carlos E. R.
    (from 11.4 x86_64 "Celadon" at Telcontar)

  10. #10

    Default Re: Automatic Updates - Is Apper as useless as Packageit was?

    Quote Originally Posted by robin_listas View Post
    On 2012-03-09 01:06, rabauke wrote:
    > Most issues people have with apper are acutally zypp backend bugs.


    No, they are packagekit bugs.
    Hm, should I believe you or the people at openSUSE actually working on the zypper, packagekit and apper code? I guess the answer is obvious. A little learning is a dangerous thing.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •