On Friday 06 June 2003 14:14, Tim Rowledge wrote:
> I claim that the full image should be produced by loading packages
> into the Basic image. What would be in an update stream for Full?
> Would it even be sensible to consider?
>
> I'm going to posit that the audience for premade Full images is
> people that want to 'play' and use tools like eToys. Perhaps we
> should consider whether such an audience would be interested in
> updating - maybe just grabbing the latest stable Full image would be
> better for them?

Perhaps if a Full Image user tried to update he could get all the 
changes for the Basic image and then, after checking with SM, any 
packages that have newer versions would be unloaded from the image, 
downloaded from the net and reloaded into the image. That should 
typically be much faster than downloading a whole new image.

> Having updates streamed for Full would mean aggregating all the Basic
> updates _and_ ensuring that maintainers of all the Basic->FUll
> packages provided updates separately. Could we effectively manage
> that?

The problem with the system I described above is that you don't get 
every little patch but have to wait for a new version of the package on 
the SM. Personally, I think most users would prefer this.

It is certainly possible to think of a per package update stream and it 
would be easy to patch the update mechanism to handle this (on the 
client side... things would be more complicated on the server side 
mostly do to administrative problems and not technical ones), but I 
don't think it is a good idea.

-- Jecel