On Tue November 18 2008 8:00:37 am Stanislav Visnovsky wrote:
On Saturday 15 November 2008 18:59:33 Richard wrote:
On Sat November 15 2008 8:44:00 am Rajko M. wrote:
On Saturday 15 November 2008 07:43:26 am Dave Plater wrote:
Something like k3b does, if another application like kiocd has control it gives you the option to kill it. Nice, you should put in an enhancement request and post the number so as I can vote.
Not good. Killing another application using software database can be dangerous. Joy of having instantly available Software Management can be spoiled with broken state of the system ;-)
-- Regards, Rajko
Have Yast send a 'signal' to the updater that says 'quit what you are doing and exit'. Then the updater can shut down gracefully. This can be done as part of the Yast message saying it can't start the software management. It is preferable to having the user go to 'top' and killing the updater cold which is what many do, dangerous or not because they don't want to wait for the updater that often seems to take 'days' to complete. When I am at the console doing maintenance on the system, *I* should have the higest priority, after all, in that portion of Yast, *I* am root and root shouldn't have to wait for an automatic program that always seems to be running when one least needs/wants it.
You can already ask packagekitd to shut down via dbus. But there is no guarantee that it will really shut down. Killing it may lead to a system corruption as mentioned elsewhere.
Stano
... AS CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED, that may be true, but the thrust of this is that the updater (*any* program or service for that matter) should be implemented in a way so as to shutdown gracefully if the ROOT so dictates. It would be dangerous for the root to issue an 'erase everything' command also, but as the root he is wearing the 'god' hat (little 'g') and unlike Windoze, must be responsible for the operation and health of the system, NOT Redmond or other entity. If the updater and Yast can 'talk' and coordinate more efficiently, the the perils of a sudden, cold shutoff are reduced or eliminated. The root is, or should be, willing to take the risk that the software might fail. Software does that, you know. The root is taking a risk by running *any* software on the machine, having 'friendly' software just makes it less risky. As stated, currently the updater can and often does create inordinate delays and the root should not have to wait on a 'service' type program. It may be the root is wanting to remove the very programs the updater would be about to update. It is the roots' system, not the developers of the OS software or utilities. Richard
If the updater can break my system when shut down for any reason, then it is broken IMO. No matter what, it should always shut down gracefullly and without damaging my system or have a good recovery mechanism (in case of failure during a power outage, etc) for the times the system is 'spoiled'/sensitive. EG, backup the files that might get 'broken' or spoiled by a unscheduled shut-down, do the update, then erase the emergency backup/recover files. It runs so long now, the extra few seconds/minutes won't make that much difference. The point is that the root should always have the priority aver automated/background processes started automatically.
Richard Richard
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org