search

marcosnils / bin

Effortless binary manager
MIT License
648 stars 45 forks source link

bin should prioritize updating itself #139

Open skorokithakis opened 2 years ago

skorokithakis commented 2 years ago

I just tried to update a few packages and got "no files found in zip file". I don't know what that's about, but there's a bin update too, and it occurs to me that that might fix the problem. I think it would be best if bin prioritized updating itself first, so if there was a failure due to a bug that had already been fixed, I could rerun it and it'd work the second time, rather than running it N times and waiting for it to randomly be updated first.

marcosnils commented 2 years ago

I think it would be best if bin prioritized updating itself first

Even if we update bin at first, we'd have to "reload" the program for the next updates to take place which would require the user to run the command twice. In that sense, it's the same thing as doing: bin update bin; bin update

I'm not convinced about an apparent benefit of updating bin first.

skorokithakis commented 2 years ago

It would, but far more users retry when something fails than think to update bin itself, and even fewer know how to do that (I didn't, until I read your comment).

On the other hand, what's the benefit of not updating it first?

breml commented 2 years ago

Maybe bin could detect this as a special case and the launch it self again (which would then start the updated version of bin).

marcosnils commented 2 years ago

Maybe bin could detect this as a special case and the launch it self again (which would then start the updated version of bin).

Yes.. this is an option as well.. but I personally believe it's not worth it. I don't find myself in many situations where an outdated versions of bin are causing issues unless a bug happened which "shouldn't" be a common scenario.

I'm not against if someone wants to implement it though.