X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Delivered-To: alpine-devel@mail.alpinelinux.org
Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com (mail-lb0-f182.google.com [209.85.217.182])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 436DEDC0109
	for <alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 18:46:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id l4so1970598lbv.27
        for <alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 10:46:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references
         :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=hdZ5QuKmgoGLHgysjca+fLUPerqHWAeKlavokv8EzDE=;
        b=RPb9WDwkv6lFaP9kuc4CemeCHpjzgtiTxHbhDHTc0dC+/PCLlSXJkH7lAE50K9MKOu
         pdaIFzmwfDKLAfGgyhU1ET2Oq2OE8R1TsiKKELtGxd+j2ayU2OtykvDLE1qopHMKWVFf
         kaqWBum5g/WcaAHDAyyB/QcNYqdwuPsXpdU3LY+K70I8YUX8qTVOYv4ZwRLWfA55Nggu
         9MUNRUhr/+ommnWZJJ+EITUxqMBmXtCqItekv/iQVrDICVkCD48mJr/gzCKrMEs1jA86
         5LhUBQZFf/sDq4IqK/Alj95bNzJs6wLbEhIMMO2nR5EJX3EfDzn1qd7k0XryvzKFsF48
         BqmQ==
X-Received: by 10.112.72.70 with SMTP id b6mr8499446lbv.0.1387737975684;
        Sun, 22 Dec 2013 10:46:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vostro ([83.145.235.194])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bo10sm9774201lbb.16.2013.12.22.10.46.15
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Sun, 22 Dec 2013 10:46:15 -0800 (PST)
Sender: =?UTF-8?Q?Timo_Ter=C3=A4s?= <timo.teras@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 20:46:13 +0200
From: Timo Teras <timo.teras@iki.fi>
To: "Leslie P. Polzer | PORT ZERO" <polzer@port-zero.com>
Cc: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] apk robustness
Message-ID: <20131222204613.5208fe57@vostro>
In-Reply-To: <52B70DFA.7010601@port-zero.com>
References: <52B70DFA.7010601@port-zero.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2 (GTK+ 2.24.20; i486-alpine-linux-uclibc)
X-Mailinglist: alpine-devel
Precedence: list
List-Id: Alpine Development <alpine-devel.lists.alpinelinux.org>
List-Unsubscribe: 
	<mailto:alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: 
	<mailto:alpine-devel+subscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org?subject=subscribe>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 17:06:18 +0100
"Leslie P. Polzer | PORT ZERO" <polzer@port-zero.com> wrote:

> how robust is apk? Consider a system upgrade with a couple
> of packages that is interrupted by a power outage. Will it
> leave the system in a sane state, guaranteed?
> 
> I think the answer is no, but I'll be happy to know more about
> this.

It is not fully guaranteed. Considering apk was originally built for
the run-from-ram situation, this is not a major issue. But now that we
are having more and more run-from-harddisk setups, it might need to be
revisited.

Basically the apk database is updated only once at the end - so the
situation will be that apk thinks nothing was done, even if some
packages got updated. Next apk update will start thinking that some
packages were not updated.

So no, the apk db is not corrupted. But yes, it will not reflect the
system status exactly.

- Timo


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---