On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:33:04 -0500-a lot. ;)
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
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
If I install a new machine with updates enabled, would I notice this
before the machine was deployed?