RFC: Rethinking EPEL at FUDcon Lawrence 2013

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:33:04 -0500
Matthew Miller <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:58:44AM -0600, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > Not volunteering at the moment because I don't have the cycles, but
> > I really like that idea.
> > Something similar, except opposite, of the security plugin.  If a
> > package has the "breakable update" option set, then don't update it
> > unless they do the "--reallyupdate" option.  But also give them a
> > nag that says the package has an update.
> 
> +1 to this

-a lot. ;) 

Anything that requires someone to read output from updates is doomed. 

If I update 100 machines, I am not going to look at all the spew from
yum, and if I don't specifically look at my logs often am I going to
notice this. 

If I install a new machine with updates enabled, would I notice this
before the machine was deployed? 

I don't think this is a good solution... still trying to think of
one. ;) 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20121205/e5d0df87/attachment.sig>