[cgl_discussion] Re: [cgl_specs] Use case - Live patching
cminyard at mvista.com
Tue Mar 29 11:42:49 PST 2005
Ralf Flaxa wrote:
>Then it should be stated very explicitely that this feature may only
>be used for and by applications and that it is forbidden to patch
>the underlying distro with it.
I would restate this to say that the distros *may* restrict it to not
patch the underlying distro-provided things. It may be that some
distros will work with their users to provide runtime patches for bugs
in things like glibc or other base libraries. A strong restriction like
this doesn't make any sense and limits the tool's use in the marketplace.
>I am wondering why the distro then should even provide that functionality?
>Why doesn't the app provider take care of this himself then if it is just
>meant for his app?
Hmm, why doesn't the user provide their own openssl libraries? Or
glibc? Shoot, why don't they provide their own OS?
>On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 03:19:07PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
>>>From the distro perspective, I can understand your serious discomfort
>>with supporting live patching of applications specific to the operating
>>system (and in the distributor's support domain).
>>The live patching feature, atleast during the specs development, was
>>targetd for use in carrier(and other interested parties) applications
>>which are supported and maintained by the carriers/others. We never
>>stated in the requirements that the distribution itself must support
>>live patching of the entire system. If you point out the specific
>>requirement that requires or implies this, then it is something that
>>needs adjustment in the specification..
>>Perhaps wording of the intended use (for carrier applications, not for
>>distro upgrades) would be helpful.
>>If live patching then becomes a "customer issue", it is really of no
>>concern to a distro whether the customer chooses to patch their own
>>applications or not.
More information about the cgl_discussion