From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 75DBDE00519; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 07:48:44 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, high * trust * [192.55.52.88 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98628E00503 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 07:48:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2016 07:48:40 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,337,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="41684131" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.219.5.165]) ([10.219.5.165]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2016 07:48:39 -0800 To: Patrick Ohly References: <20161121120355.18309-1-git@andred.net> <1480503859.6873.280.camel@intel.com> <1480516308.13682.1.camel@andred.net> <1480517999.6873.298.camel@intel.com> <30a3dd41-2e1c-8658-b83d-8632944d1709@denx.de> <1481017522.17535.38.camel@intel.com> <8e1fdcb8-d9fb-0e51-2e21-91e7e7c6f450@linux.intel.com> <16ca1a50-f46a-196f-66b8-91f0d14f59c2@denx.de> <1481296433.17535.170.camel@intel.com> <4515f6e0-a99b-09ae-e233-786ceed4847d@denx.de> <1481557268.17535.234.camel@intel.com> From: Mariano Lopez Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:49:01 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1481557268.17535.234.camel@intel.com> Cc: "Lopez, Mariano" , yocto@yoctoproject.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=c3=a9_Draszik?= Subject: Re: update mechanisms X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 15:48:44 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/12/16 09:41, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 08:59 -0600, Mariano Lopez wrote: >>>> In particular the "complexity" column is a bit subjective. Stefano, I >>>> hope you don't mind that I did not quite buy the "easy to use" >>>> characterization of swupdate ;-) >>> No worry...and I have not written myself. It was inserted by Mariano, so >>> it looks like that swupdate at least for Mariano is "easy to use". >>> I think it is correct to point out that customization is required. >> Compared to other update mechanism that I tested it was the easier to >> implement. > Which "getting started" document or presentation were you using? The > documentation for mender (https://docs.mender.io/) is very > straight-forward (partly of course because it doesn't need to cover many > variations), while for swupdate > (http://sbabic.github.io/swupdate/swupdate.html) I found it less clear > how to begin. > When I did a research in update mechanism, mender wasn't yet available, and indeed it seems very straight forward (need to test it before final veredict). But if you compare SWUpdate, swupd, and OSTree; SWUpdate is by far less complex than the other two