Automatic updates

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Automatic updates

Doug Bissett-2
Automatic updates have been discussed, off and on, for years. Most of
the discussion has revolved around using WarpIn to do the updates. I
may have a better way:

For some time now, I have been installing the Firefox (and
Thunderbird) distributions on my main machine, using the time worn
"delete, and unzip" method. That works, as it should. On the rest of
my systems, I have set up a bach file to use RSYNC to do the updates
from my main machine. That has worked well, and it is quick and easy.
I am sure that the same thing would work for SeaMokey.

I propose that all we need is a server that can run RSYNC (eCS, Linux,
or even Delta Copy, under windows), where the "pristine" copy of
Firefox etc. can be stored. Then, use RSYNC in eCS (OS/2) to update
the user's copy to the latest version. RSYNC determines what needs to
be updated (or deleted), and makes the appropriate changes, without
having to transfer everything. I haven't tested it, but it should even
be possible to exclude the profiles directory for those who still have
their profiles in the Firefox directory structure.

Another advantage (especially for Dave, who is still stuck with dialup
access) is that updating the "pristine" copy could also use RSYNC,
which would automatically update the parts that need to be updated. It
would not be necessary to update the whole thing. Some planning is
probably required, but it seems that RSYNC transfers about 3/4 of the
total number of bytes in the "pristine" copy. If it is possible to
build Firefox in such a way that only files that actually get updated
have new dates and times, that number could be reduced. The "-c"
parameter may do that, but I haven't tested it yet.

RSYNC has reasonable security to protect the "pristine" copy from
abuse, for those who worry about such things.
 
Thoughts?

--
From the eComStation of Doug Bissett
dougb007 at telus dot net
(Please make the obvious changes, to e-mail me)

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic updates

Allan-10
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:19:02 UTC, "Doug Bissett" <dougb007![hidden email]> wrote:

> Automatic updates have been discussed, off and on, for years. Most of
> the discussion has revolved around using WarpIn to do the updates. I
> may have a better way:

[...]
> RSYNC has reasonable security to protect the "pristine" copy from
> abuse, for those who worry about such things.
>  
> Thoughts?

Why doesn't we just use the buildin automatic updater in FF/SM/TB ??
It can't be that hard to make it point to the OS/2 build, instead of
the Win build.

Can devs please give us an idea, why that has never been worked on ?

The question about which files to update......simple.
Wipe the old dir+subdirs, and copy in fresh.
Thats how we (should!) do the unzip updates today anyway.

--
  Allan.

It is better to close your mouth, and look like a fool,
than to open it, and remove all doubt.
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic updates

Dave Yeo-3
Allan wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:19:02 UTC, "Doug Bissett"<dougb007![hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> Automatic updates have been discussed, off and on, for years. Most of
>> the discussion has revolved around using WarpIn to do the updates. I
>> may have a better way:
>
> [...]
>> RSYNC has reasonable security to protect the "pristine" copy from
>> abuse, for those who worry about such things.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Why doesn't we just use the buildin automatic updater in FF/SM/TB ??
> It can't be that hard to make it point to the OS/2 build, instead of
> the Win build.
>
> Can devs please give us an idea, why that has never been worked on ?

It would probably be easy to use the automatic updater for us but when
it was discussed before most people didn't seem to want automatic updates.

>
> The question about which files to update......simple.
> Wipe the old dir+subdirs, and copy in fresh.
> Thats how we (should!) do the unzip updates today anyway.
>

It pretty well has to be that way as the DLLs and such are all
internally versioned. Of course that raises the question of how the best
way to update a running browser in place would be.
Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic updates

Steve Wendt
On 12/21/12 07:34 pm, Dave Yeo wrote:

> It would probably be easy to use the automatic updater for us but when
> it was discussed before most people didn't seem to want automatic updates.

I think feature parity is more important here; as on other platforms, it
can be turned off if you don't want it.
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic updates

Doug Bissett-2
In reply to this post by Dave Yeo-3
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 03:34:30 UTC, Dave Yeo <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Allan wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:19:02 UTC, "Doug Bissett"<dougb007![hidden email]>  wrote:
> >
> >> Automatic updates have been discussed, off and on, for years. Most of
> >> the discussion has revolved around using WarpIn to do the updates. I
> >> may have a better way:
> >
> > [...]
> >> RSYNC has reasonable security to protect the "pristine" copy from
> >> abuse, for those who worry about such things.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> > Why doesn't we just use the buildin automatic updater in FF/SM/TB ??
> > It can't be that hard to make it point to the OS/2 build, instead of
> > the Win build.
> >
> > Can devs please give us an idea, why that has never been worked on ?
>
> It would probably be easy to use the automatic updater for us but when
> it was discussed before most people didn't seem to want automatic updates.

I always thought it had something to do with updating the repository,
which you can't do, and, apparently nobody else has authority either.
I suppose that a new repository could be built, but if that is done,
you might as well make the update procedure as quick, and easy, as
possible.  RSYNC should do the job.

> >
> > The question about which files to update......simple.
> > Wipe the old dir+subdirs, and copy in fresh.
> > Thats how we (should!) do the unzip updates today anyway.
> >
>
> It pretty well has to be that way as the DLLs and such are all
> internally versioned. Of course that raises the question of how the best
> way to update a running browser in place would be.
> Dave

The easy way is to do it when the program is closed. With RSYNC, a
simple batch file would do the job, on demand, while the program is
closed. I suppose that the program could start the batch file, then
close. The batch file could restart the program after the update is
finished. That seems to be what the windows versions do anyway,
although they do the download before closing the program. The biggest
"problem" would be to get everybody to install RSYNC.

--
From the eComStation of Doug Bissett
dougb007 at telus dot net
(Please make the obvious changes, to e-mail me)

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic updates

Dave Yeo-3
In reply to this post by Steve Wendt
Steve Wendt wrote:
> On 12/21/12 07:34 pm, Dave Yeo wrote:
>
>> It would probably be easy to use the automatic updater for us but when
>> it was discussed before most people didn't seem to want automatic
>> updates.
>
> I think feature parity is more important here; as on other platforms, it
> can be turned off if you don't want it.

There's still the question of how to update a running browser. Easy on
Linux where you can delete open files or on Windows where people expect
to have to reboot regularly. (How does modern Windows do it?)
All I can think of quickly is some kind of script that gets run when the
browser is shutdown or restarted.
Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic updates

Lars Erdmann
Updating an in use DLL or EXE is also possible under OS/2. There is an API
to do that.
The only problem are help files and the like.

Lars


"Dave Yeo" <[hidden email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[hidden email]...

> Steve Wendt wrote:
>> On 12/21/12 07:34 pm, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>
>>> It would probably be easy to use the automatic updater for us but when
>>> it was discussed before most people didn't seem to want automatic
>>> updates.
>>
>> I think feature parity is more important here; as on other platforms, it
>> can be turned off if you don't want it.
>
> There's still the question of how to update a running browser. Easy on
> Linux where you can delete open files or on Windows where people expect to
> have to reboot regularly. (How does modern Windows do it?)
> All I can think of quickly is some kind of script that gets run when the
> browser is shutdown or restarted.
> Dave

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic updates

Allan-10
In reply to this post by Dave Yeo-3
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:59:53 UTC, Dave Yeo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Steve Wendt wrote:
> > On 12/21/12 07:34 pm, Dave Yeo wrote:
> >
> >> It would probably be easy to use the automatic updater for us but when
> >> it was discussed before most people didn't seem to want automatic
> >> updates.

I must have missed that - but I for sure would like to see the auto or manual
update, that is in Win/Nix Moz, be working for OS/2 version

> > I think feature parity is more important here; as on other platforms, it
> > can be turned off if you don't want it.

Yes, and you can still ask it to search for new and update it manually,

> There's still the question of how to update a running browser. Easy on
> Linux where you can delete open files or on Windows where people expect
> to have to reboot regularly. (How does modern Windows do it?)
> All I can think of quickly is some kind of script that gets run when the
> browser is shutdown or restarted.

Exactly, on Windows it shutdown and restarts the browser, opening all
windows that were open previously, after it has downloaded and updated
the files. As it is easy in OS/2 to overwrite even running EXE and DLL files,
I don't see why Win code should more or less work in OS/2 (adapted to
out API for unlocking locked files).

Question is more where it should search for the new versions, as they
currently are never uploaded to Moz official FTP sites.


--
  Allan.

It is better to close your mouth, and look like a fool,
than to open it, and remove all doubt.
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic updates

Steve Wendt
In reply to this post by Dave Yeo-3
On 12/21/12 10:59 pm, Dave Yeo wrote:

> There's still the question of how to update a running browser. Easy on
> Linux where you can delete open files or on Windows where people expect
> to have to reboot regularly. (How does modern Windows do it?)

I believe it creates a list of files to move around, which gets
examined/processed at browser startup.  I think the old OS/2 installer
touched that a bit, sometimes incorrectly(!).
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic updates

Dave Yeo-3
Steve Wendt wrote:
> On 12/21/12 10:59 pm, Dave Yeo wrote:
>
>> There's still the question of how to update a running browser. Easy on
>> Linux where you can delete open files or on Windows where people expect
>> to have to reboot regularly. (How does modern Windows do it?)
>
> I believe it creates a list of files to move around, which gets
> examined/processed at browser startup.  I think the old OS/2 installer
> touched that a bit, sometimes incorrectly(!).

See http://wiki.mozilla.org/Software_Update, I believe most of the
scripts etc are here,
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-esr10/source/tools/update-packaging/ It
really does not look trivial and I have other things that I'd rather do.
Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic updates

Steve Wendt
On 12/22/12 07:41 pm, Dave Yeo wrote:

> does not look trivial and I have other things that I'd rather do.

I can definitely understand that!  I wouldn't consider this in any way a
high priority; anyone who disagrees is certainly welcome to put their
time and/or money into it.
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic updates

Dave Yeo-3
In reply to this post by Allan-10
Allan wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:59:53 UTC, Dave Yeo<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> >  Steve Wendt wrote:
>>> >  >  On 12/21/12 07:34 pm, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>> >  >
>>>> >  >>  It would probably be easy to use the automatic updater for us but when
>>>> >  >>  it was discussed before most people didn't seem to want automatic
>>>> >  >>  updates.
> I must have missed that - but I for sure would like to see the auto or manual
> update, that is in Win/Nix Moz, be working for OS/2 version
>

It was a long time ago and I may well be misremembering things. Perhaps
it was just Peter who didn't like automatic updates or it was part of
the discussion when our installer was removed.
Anyways I don't like them enough to put much effort into it though it
would be nice for the browser to notify the user that there is an update
available.
Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Automatic updates

Ray Davison
In reply to this post by Doug Bissett-2
Doug Bissett wrote:
> Automatic updates have been discussed, off and on, for years.

I also follow the Win SM list.  Win has an update mechanism.  And the
Win list has a lot of weeping and wailing about updates; lost email
being very common.

Historically Mozilla products change frequently.  And, the later
products don't always work.  An update destroys the previous version so
that where you had something that did work, now you have nothing and get
to try to back level.  On the other hand, to have a new version
available without disturbing the previous, takes maybe a minute to unzip
and make a run object.  When looking for a bug date I have had as many
as twenty versions.  I have never had fewer than three.

As an aside, a lot of the anguish on the Win list could be avoided if no
part of any Mozilla product is on a boot partition, no profile is in an
app tree, and mail is not in a profile.  I assume the file structure
defaults were intended to make Mozilla easy and maybe "safe".  All I see
them doing is adding confusion, especially during update.

Ray


_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2