[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: RFC: Rethinking EPEL at FUDcon Lawrence 2013

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:33:04 -0500
Matthew Miller <mattdm 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. ;) 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]