Re: update mechanisms

[Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>]

On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 16:35 -0800, Eystein Måløy Stenberg wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 10:45 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 10:01 +0100, Stefano Babic wrote:
> > > Hi Patrick,
> > >
> > > On 30/11/2016 15:59, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > > > I've started a Wiki page
> > > > https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/System_Update - rudimentary at the
> > > > moment, but might as well be mentioned already now.
> > >
> > > I have seen Mariano added an entry for SWUpdate, too, thanks  - I would
> > > like to edit for better explanation on some parts. Should I try to edit
> > > directly the page or is it better to discuss it here ?
> >
> > Use your own judgment. If its uncontroversial, the feel free to edit the
> > page directly, otherwise let's discuss it here.
> >
> > If feel that putting information directly into the table is too limiting
> > (it should be brief), then feel free to start a complete section about
> > SWUpdate.
> >
> > 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.
> 
> I updated the Mender part of the wiki now that the stable version Mender 
> 1.0 is released. These changes should not be controversial, but let me 
> know if you disagree. We are planning to keep the Mender section 
> up-to-date as we release new versions, as I think this is what you expect.

Yes, that's useful.

> Are there any plans for next steps or is the wiki the "final state" in 
> terms of integrating OTA updates in Yocto/OE?

My own conclusion is that it is impossible to integrate a specific OTA
update into Yocto/OE (because there's no single solution that fits all
requirements) and/or it would be unfair to those solutions that don't
get such special testing. In that sense the Wiki page is the final
result of the investigation. Anyone interested in picking a solution can
go there, consider the pros and cons, and then make a choice.

However, I see room for some collaborative work that then can happen in
Yocto/OE:
      * carrying local system configuration changes across system
        updates: I find it promising to investigate the "stateless"
        concept and have started some exploratory work, see
        https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Stateless#Status_and_goals_for_.22stateless.22_in_Yocto (more on that soon)
      * supporting UEFI-based machines

In contrast to Yocto/OE, the IoT Reference OS Kit can (and in a way, has
to) make some choices because it needs a functional solution out of the
box. My current thinking there is to support one file-based (OSTree?)
and one block-based (Mender.io?) solution, the block-based one perhaps
combined with dm-verity.

-- 
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.