On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 15:13 +0000, André Draszik wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 10:45 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > I'll do the same for swupd. Editing the sections should be possible > > without conflicts, we just have to be more careful about editing the > > table concurrently. > > It looks as if some highlights about swupdate can equally be said about > swupd: > > - dual copy is supported > - my minimal swupd-based rescue initramfs is around 4MB
swupdate has support for a "dual copy strategy" (http://sbabic.github.io/swupdate/swupdate.html#software-collections) while out-of-the-box (i.e. with what is currently available) meta-swupd and swupd itself don't. So I think it is correct to say that swupdate has some (implementation) advantage here. The "could be extended to do updates without that risk" in the "swupd/Failure resilience" section was meant to include a dual-copy approach. Should that be rephrased to be more explicit? I was thinking of several possible scenarios: * single partition: stage files, stop services, update, restart services or reboot * dual partition: update inactive partition, swap partitions, reboot -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
