Re: [cgl_specs] Use case - Live patching

You claim that you want to set a standard with CGL, right?
But a standard that only some distros would follow or that is
fuzzy about what is allowed or not is not a standard IMHO.
The term "certified" has to be verifiable.

	Ralf

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:42:49PM -0600, Corey Minyard wrote:
> 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?
> 
> -Corey
> 
> >	Ralf
> >
> >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.
> >>
> >>Regards
> >>-steve
> >>   
> >>

_______________________________________________
cgl_discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion