On 14 July 2017 at 20:28, Andreas Tunek <andreas.tu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is this really more reliable than using dnf (for graphical packages > like Recepies and Builder)?
It's hugely more reliable. You can't actually trust rpm to do anything atomically, and this is the main reason we force upgrade to be offline in the workstation product. Just doing this one step reduced the number of people experiencing the dead-system-after-upgrading bugs by two order of magnitude, but it SUCKS to have to reboot to apply application updates. Doing live updates with rpm is a bit like doing maintenance on your car engine while driving down the freeway. Most of the time it's fine, and you feel awesome. 0.001% of the time you die in a huge fireball. > What exactly is it that makes flatpaks > more reliable? They are *designed* to be updated atomically. You can safely update application from a->b->c all running any permutation of running processes and flatpak makes sure that the running app is only cleaned up when the last instance is closed. RPM is an awesome system for building the OS, just not managing *apps*. Flatpak is that awesome thing for apps. Richard, the man that gets to triage the "live updates hosed my system" bugs. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
