[openbeos] Re: general update tool idea

  • From: Linus Almstrom <linalm-7@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:27:46 +0200

Why would this be needed when we have and use cvs?

On 2002-06-19 at 19:55:13 [+0200], openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hello,
> I have an idea that i think would prove to be elegant. it would be an 
> alternate method of updating our beos apps (similar to reos or 
> beosupdate).
> basically it's for people who want to always stay on the bleeding edge. 
> we do that by providing an object based update.
> we send the compiled objects for each file that changed/added. this would 
> mean twice the size of the app/lib on the user's hard disc, but also 
> means less network activity and more elegant updating. instead of 
> redownloading a 2.2mb app, we only download the 70k that got updated 
> between "releases". the linking is done in the user's computer, by the 
> update application (calls gcc/ld/libtool/whatever needed). i think this 
> is superior to the methods that exist today.
> here's a sample session as i see it :)
> - hello
> - hi, ip (217/2000)
> - whatsnew app2024 29032002
> - sending 2024 29032002-19062002 log
> we then get a log which looks like
> add blah.o
> del tractor.o
> edit stringview.o
> del mom.o
> we parse the file and delete every object that has del from our object 
> directory.
> now, we request optimization from the server and size of objects. (we 
> have the option of size/plain/debug/generic x86 o3/cpu optimized (gcc3 
> thinking) )
> the server returns
> app2024 ftp://athlonxp.beosupdate.org/2024/blah.o 35271 app2024 
> ftp://athlonxp.beosupdate.org/2024/stringview.o 78943
> we get the objects compressed over the network similar to cvs -z9 
> compression.
> when we finish downloading (we even have the progress of download (for UI 
> app) since we know the size)
> we just link it all together (and perhaps run some kind of checksum check 
> on the generated binary to see that it fits.) and viola, we have the new 
> app.
> this method is generally good for those who want to cvs update but don't 
> wanna waste so many cycles compiling, when in fact, only once is enough, 
> instead of compiling in every user's comp, we do it centrally for them. 
> the down size is that it would obviously only work for opensource apps.
> anyway, for the server we can use a muscle server. (the main (muscle?) 
> server basically only checks the ftp directory of the app on request for 
> obj files created between now and the string the client sends. (it can 
> cache it later)
> or the ftp server can publish the updated apps for the main server. this 
> is details for later.)
> the ftp servers will need to have a constant link to cvs and compile the 
> new sources.
> + some kind of schedule util.
> we can make different directories for different gcc flags or like in the 
> example, different servers.
> this is basically the feature's top design. shouldn't be very complex to 
> implement, most of the code is available tools.
> what do u think? makes sense?
> thanks in advance, kobi.

Other related posts: