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.