Comments regarding the upgrade process

Comments regarding the upgrade process

[Lars Schuhmacher]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2025 bytes --]

Hi,

today I updated from core 94 to 95. No problems so far, but I noticed some things that probably could be improved.


    ipfire:~# pakfire upgrade
    CORE UPGR: Upgrading from release 94 to 95
    meta-core-upgrade... 100.00% |=============================>|   341.00 B
    core-upgrade-2.17... 100.00% |=============================>|   38.04 MB
    PAKFIRE UPGR: core-upgrade-95: Decrypting...
    PAKFIRE UPGR: core-upgrade-95: Upgrading files and running post-upgrading scripts...

--> Would be nice to have a "--verbose" param to get
the output of "/var/log/pakfire/update-core-upgrade-95.log"
at this time. Otherwise there is not much output and
especially on slow machines the user gets nervous what is happening.


    PAKFIRE UPGR: core-upgrade-95: Finished.

    Core-Update 2.17
    Release: 94 -> 95

    Update: linux-pae
    Version: 0 -> 3.14.57
    Release: 0 -> 64

--> Should the previous version/release really be 0?


    PAKFIRE RESV: linux-pae: Resolving dependencies...

    PAKFIRE UPGR: We are going to install all packages listed above.
    PAKFIRE INFO: Is this okay? [y/N]

--> Shouldn't the default be Yes?


    y
    linux-pae-3.14.57... 100.00% |=============================>|   25.39 MB
    PAKFIRE UPGR: linux-pae: Decrypting...
    PAKFIRE UPGR: linux-pae: Upgrading files and running post-upgrading scripts...
    PAKFIRE UPGR: linux-pae: Finished.

--> Same as above with "--verbose", here for "/var/log/pakfire/update-linux-pae.log"


>From update-linux-pae.log:
    *** Installing kernel module dependencies and firmware ***
    *** Installing kernel module dependencies and firmware done ***
    *** Resolving executable dependencies ***
    *** Resolving executable dependencies done***
    Could not find 'strip'. Not stripping the initramfs.
    *** Store current command line parameters ***
    *** Creating image file ***
    *** Creating image file done ***

--> Should "strip" exist and is it needed?



Lars

Re: Comments regarding the upgrade process

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2647 bytes --]

Hi,

I am afraid that I must disappoint you on some of these points. pakfire
in IPFire 2 is legacy code and I do not have the time to add new
features. It is just maintained as it is and bugs are fixed.

We have a rewrite of this in IPFire 3 already.

On Tue, 2015-12-22 at 19:16 +0100, Lars Schuhmacher wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> today I updated from core 94 to 95. No problems so far, but I noticed
> some things that probably could be improved.
> 
> 
>     ipfire:~# pakfire upgrade
>     CORE UPGR: Upgrading from release 94 to 95
>     meta-core-upgrade... 100.00%
> |=============================>|   341.00 B
>     core-upgrade-2.17... 100.00%
> |=============================>|   38.04 MB
>     PAKFIRE UPGR: core-upgrade-95: Decrypting...
>     PAKFIRE UPGR: core-upgrade-95: Upgrading files and running post-
> upgrading scripts...
> 
> --> Would be nice to have a "--verbose" param to get
> the output of "/var/log/pakfire/update-core-upgrade-95.log"
> at this time. Otherwise there is not much output and
> especially on slow machines the user gets nervous what is happening.
> 
> 
>     PAKFIRE UPGR: core-upgrade-95: Finished.
> 
>     Core-Update 2.17
>     Release: 94 -> 95
> 
>     Update: linux-pae
>     Version: 0 -> 3.14.57
>     Release: 0 -> 64
> 
> --> Should the previous version/release really be 0?
> 
> 
>     PAKFIRE RESV: linux-pae: Resolving dependencies...
> 
>     PAKFIRE UPGR: We are going to install all packages listed above.
>     PAKFIRE INFO: Is this okay? [y/N]
> 
> --> Shouldn't the default be Yes?

Why?

> 
> 
>     y
>     linux-pae-3.14.57... 100.00%
> |=============================>|   25.39 MB
>     PAKFIRE UPGR: linux-pae: Decrypting...
>     PAKFIRE UPGR: linux-pae: Upgrading files and running post-
> upgrading scripts...
>     PAKFIRE UPGR: linux-pae: Finished.
> 
> --> Same as above with "--verbose", here for
> "/var/log/pakfire/update-linux-pae.log"
> 
> 
> From update-linux-pae.log:
>     *** Installing kernel module dependencies and firmware ***
>     *** Installing kernel module dependencies and firmware done ***
>     *** Resolving executable dependencies ***
>     *** Resolving executable dependencies done***
>     Could not find 'strip'. Not stripping the initramfs.
>     *** Store current command line parameters ***
>     *** Creating image file ***
>     *** Creating image file done ***
> 
> --> Should "strip" exist and is it needed?

All binaries and kernel modules are already stripped, so stripping them
again is unnecessary.

> 
> 
> 
> Lars

-Michael

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: Comments regarding the upgrade process

[Larsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 719 bytes --]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:36:35 +0100, Michael Tremer  
<michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am afraid that I must disappoint you on some of these points. pakfire
> in IPFire 2 is legacy code and I do not have the time to add new
> features. It is just maintained as it is and bugs are fixed.
>
> We have a rewrite of this in IPFire 3 already.

So, there will be more verbose output?



>>     PAKFIRE UPGR: We are going to install all packages listed above.
>>     PAKFIRE INFO: Is this okay? [y/N]
>>
>> --> Shouldn't the default be Yes?
>
> Why?

Cause you would normally want to install the new packages? And maybe  
IPFire relies on the new versions? (I don't know how this is supposed to  
work)


Lars

Re: Comments regarding the upgrade process

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1958 bytes --]

On Tue, 2015-12-22 at 23:45 +0100, Larsen wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:36:35 +0100, Michael Tremer  
> <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I am afraid that I must disappoint you on some of these points.
> > pakfire
> > in IPFire 2 is legacy code and I do not have the time to add new
> > features. It is just maintained as it is and bugs are fixed.
> > 
> > We have a rewrite of this in IPFire 3 already.
> 
> So, there will be more verbose output?

Yes some. It will look like this:

  http://pakfire.ipfire.org/packages/release/bash/0-4.3-11.ip3/logs/bui
ld.x86_64.1.log

AT the beginning of the log there is just a quick overview about the
package being built. Then follows a transaction summary of pakfire
which lists which packages will be installed/update/removed and after
that a progress bar what step of the transaction is currently taking
place.

Then there is a build of the bash package which is part of the build
system and not pakfire as a package manager.

Basically pakfire installs a temporary chroot environment with all the
build dependencies, compiled the package and finally destroys the whole
build environment again.

> > >     PAKFIRE UPGR: We are going to install all packages listed
> > > above.
> > >     PAKFIRE INFO: Is this okay? [y/N]
> > > 
> > > --> Shouldn't the default be Yes?
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> Cause you would normally want to install the new packages? And
> maybe  
> IPFire relies on the new versions? (I don't know how this is supposed
> to  
> work)

You are not asked if you want to install the core update. That will
always happen. This is just for the add-on packages. Of course you
would want to install them indeed.

I basically thought that "n" is the safe option here and this is
usually the default. How do other package managers do this? I would
like this to be equal for better user experience. Once you are used to
these things... you know?

> 
> 
> Lars

-Michael

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: Comments regarding the upgrade process

[Larsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1214 bytes --]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:51:13 +0100, Michael Tremer  
<michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> wrote:

>> So, there will be more verbose output?
>
> Yes some. It will look like this:

Well, that looks way more verbose =)



>> > >     PAKFIRE UPGR: We are going to install all packages listed
>> > > above.
>> > >     PAKFIRE INFO: Is this okay? [y/N]
>> > >
>> > > --> Shouldn't the default be Yes?
>> >
>> > Why?
>>
>> Cause you would normally want to install the new packages? And
>> maybe IPFire relies on the new versions? (I don't know how this is  
>> supposed
>> to work)
>
> You are not asked if you want to install the core update. That will
> always happen. This is just for the add-on packages. Of course you
> would want to install them indeed.
>
> I basically thought that "n" is the safe option here and this is
> usually the default. How do other package managers do this? I would
> like this to be equal for better user experience. Once you are used to
> these things... you know?

I can't recall any other software where some situation like this would  
occur.

In which cases would a user want to _NOT_ install some packages?
What is more likely: A newbie that would need this or some advanced user?


Lars

Re: Comments regarding the upgrade process

[R. W. Rodolico]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3024 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Other package managers (Debian for one, but there are others I can't
think of right now), have Yes set as the default EXCEPT when bringing in
packages which require updates to other packages, ie if package A has a
dependency on package B in the new version, but not the previous, then
you must explicitly tell it to install package A.

However, if package A has a pre-existing dependency on package B, then
both A and B are defaulted to being updated.

However, my two cents are for minor things like this, forget it and work
on on IPFire 3. We can live with annoyances in 2 if it ends up with more
time being spent on 3.

Rod

On 12/22/2015 04:51 PM, Michael Tremer wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-12-22 at 23:45 +0100, Larsen wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:36:35 +0100, Michael Tremer 
>> <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I am afraid that I must disappoint you on some of these
>>> points. pakfire in IPFire 2 is legacy code and I do not have
>>> the time to add new features. It is just maintained as it is
>>> and bugs are fixed.
>>> 
>>> We have a rewrite of this in IPFire 3 already.
>> 
>> So, there will be more verbose output?
> 
> Yes some. It will look like this:
> 
> http://pakfire.ipfire.org/packages/release/bash/0-4.3-11.ip3/logs/bui
>
> 
ld.x86_64.1.log
> 
> AT the beginning of the log there is just a quick overview about
> the package being built. Then follows a transaction summary of
> pakfire which lists which packages will be installed/update/removed
> and after that a progress bar what step of the transaction is
> currently taking place.
> 
> Then there is a build of the bash package which is part of the
> build system and not pakfire as a package manager.
> 
> Basically pakfire installs a temporary chroot environment with all
> the build dependencies, compiled the package and finally destroys
> the whole build environment again.
> 
>>>> PAKFIRE UPGR: We are going to install all packages listed 
>>>> above. PAKFIRE INFO: Is this okay? [y/N]
>>>> 
>>>> --> Shouldn't the default be Yes?
>>> 
>>> Why?
>> 
>> Cause you would normally want to install the new packages? And 
>> maybe IPFire relies on the new versions? (I don't know how this
>> is supposed to work)
> 
> You are not asked if you want to install the core update. That
> will always happen. This is just for the add-on packages. Of course
> you would want to install them indeed.
> 
> I basically thought that "n" is the safe option here and this is 
> usually the default. How do other package managers do this? I
> would like this to be equal for better user experience. Once you
> are used to these things... you know?
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Lars
> 
> -Michael
> 

- -- 
Rod Rodolico
Daily Data, Inc.
POB 140465
Dallas TX 75214-0465
214.827.2170
http://www.dailydata.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlZ57FwACgkQuVY3UpYMlTS9uQCeOjvUk7yaEwUj3A8yzetbvoo+
Pr0An2JaRaiEGlA/B0Btroy2x9gYkw3H
=9b1c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----