From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tremer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: Add "reinstall core update" button to Pakfire? Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 11:19:24 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <88d84c753abc60a6d8655a479c05bfac@leo-andres.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8372451079782752264==" List-Id: --===============8372451079782752264== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, > On 13 May 2022, at 09:05, hofmann(a)leo-andres.de wrote: >=20 > Hi Michael, >=20 > Am 12.05.2022 um 11:20 schrieb Michael Tremer: >> Hello Leo, >>> On 11 May 2022, at 13:18, Leo Hofmann wrote: Hi= all, I saw this comment in the Pakfire functions library: https://git.ipfire= .org/?p=3Dipfire-2.x.git;a=3Dblob;f=3Dsrc/pakfire/lib/functions.pl;h=3Dd4e338= f23ae8ae97d6f18c6d8890d13463dc5d30;hb=3Drefs/heads/next#l762 And I remembered= that sometimes people ask how to reinstall an update. For example because th= ey have changed from the "testing" tree back to "stable" and want to get the = final release version of the update. Would it be worthwhile to add a "reinsta= ll core update" button to the web interface? Or would that lead to people bre= aking stuff? Is decrementing '/opt/pakfire/db/core/mine' still the recommende= d way to do that? https://wiki.ipfire.org/configuration/ipfire/pakfire/testing >> Technically, that is all that needs to be done, and we semi-automatically = do this when people change from one branch to another one. We then re-install= the latest version of the last update which is just a shot in the dark to ke= ep systems somewhat close to the releases - which is always a little bit diff= icult in a test environment. However, I am not in favour of making re-install= ing this too easy, because you can just see some of the outfall in Adolf=E2= =80=99s emails from yesterday. It is generally not a supported operation. How= ever, it can be helpful in very few cases. But only very few. > Well I assumed that this would be used much more often, because it is asked= for from time to time and a wiki page exists. >> I would also say that on the web UI, we should be very careful about givin= g people the option to =E2=80=9Cpress a magic button and everything is alrigh= t=E2=80=9D. We somehow introduced that with the fsck button which I do not th= ink helps anyone that much really, because a healthy filesystem does not manu= al checking (it is not Windows 98 where you have to =E2=80=9Cdefragment=E2=80= =9D things from time to time) and if it does, it is normally smart enough to = figure that out by itself. If the user has any reason to believe that their f= ilesystem might be corrupt, the filesystem should have noticed that earlier a= nd try to fix itself, or you are in territory where you will have to replace = your storage device and re-install the whole OS. Right now, I do not mind hav= ing that button - it does not do much harm after all. But I thought it was a = good example to illustrate that just because we can very easily give people t= he option, we should ask ourselves why people would need this in the first pl= ace. > Personally I use lower end hardware for my home setup and this has helped m= e find a faulty SSD. > In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with having basic troubleshooting too= ls easily accessible, especially in chaotic moments after a failure. > But if you have noticed that users see this as a magic "fix my messed up se= tup" button, I'm happy to rename or (re)move it. How about "run 'fsck'" inste= ad of "check filesystem"? I do not have anything against a button that makes people=E2=80=99s lives eas= ier. Not at all. I am just a little bit fearful that people might use it wrong; and then, the = problems outweigh the benefits. I was just using the fsck button as an example because I thought it was an ea= sy one. I do not have any desire to remove it again. It does not create any h= arm. However, re-applying an update might be a more dangerous operation. >> Regarding re-installing an older Core Update I am thinking: a) The user is= testing something and things didn=E2=80=99t work out. Going back isn=E2=80= =99t always possible but it might work. In that case, those people should kno= w how to do this. Maybe a command line option is convenient. I wouldn=E2=80= =99t object that. > Yes that would be a nice feature for the testers. But I don't want to work = on the Pakfire core for such a small thing. Why not? >> b) You have reason to believe that your system was compromised. Re-install= ing the latest Core Update does not fix that. Here is where I consider a butt= on on the web UI dangerous. Just pressing that does not fix anything. > Okay here I have to agree with you. That button might give a false sense of= security. Besides, someone who really needs this button is unlikely to run t= esting releases. False sense of security is kind of the keyword here. It is probably not only = our fight to fight, and Peter would heavily object here, but we have too many= people working in IT who do not know enough about basic things. It happens t= hat people set up a firewall =E2=80=9Cand then you are all safe=E2=80=9D. Tha= t isn=E2=80=99t enough. It has to be configured, and it has to be maintained.= That is work that just needs to be done. We have so many systems that run an outdated version of IPFire. We have to as= sume that it is a lot easier to exploit those installations than an up-to-dat= e one, and so there is no real security, just the false sense of it. I would like to fight this somewhat. In the end, people are obviously on their own. We cannot make this whole thin= g idiot proof. If people are ignorant to how networks work and how to set up = a firewall, then that is a huge problem that we cannot solve with any buttons= . But I would like to take away any lazy excuses for those people. -Michael >=20 > Regards > Leo >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >> Did I overlook any reasons why this option should be there? -Michael >>> Best regards Leo >> =20 --===============8372451079782752264==--