On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 11:15 -0600, Dan Bongert wrote: > I realize that this isn't supported by Red Hat, but neither are several other > things (reiserfs, etc.) that don't cause any problems. So, which camp does > this fall into: > > 1) Unsupported but will still work just fine (fwiw reiserfs doesn't quite fall into this since it doesn't get the bugfixes and testing it'd need to be working just fine) > or > 2) Unsupported because it is a bad bad idea Imo it usually falls under this. The reason is that we regularly go back to a package version of a package that is older than the beta (say, for example, because the beta package showed defects that we couldn't fix in time). Using RHN to upgrade to the final update leaves the "newest" package in place, which in this scenario is actually the known defective package. I'm not sure how often this happens, but it happens enough for the RH folks to really not like this option..
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part