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

Re: Long-term package versions (RHEL 5+ extended to 10 years until EOL)

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:42:06 +0100
Xavier Bachelot <xavier bachelot org> wrote:

> On 02/09/2012 04:00 AM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> > On 02/08/2012 09:46 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >> * If you can't do a seemless upgrade, you move on to parallel
> >> installs like we are doing with mediawiki. Announce and try and
> >> get people to realize the flow and that they need to upgrade.
> >
> > I like the general outline, though the 'announce' part might be a
> > bit tricky.  The biggest risk would be that people think they're
> > getting updates to their core package when they're not.
> >
> I like that too, and think it would be nice to have such a
> comprehensive list somewhere in the wiki. I also fear that the
> announce mails might miss their target and something involving yum
> would seem better to me. See below.

Yeah, a wiki list at least would be good. 

> Rather than a cron mail that could easily get lost, just like the 
> announce mails, would there be any way to maintain a list of 
> discontinued packages in the repo or repodata and have a yum plugin 
> check against this list. I have no idea if it is at all possible to
> do that, I don't know what yum plugins are able to do or not, and how 
> convenient/feasible it would do have such a list in the repo or
> repodatas.

Well, we could ship a package that removes them, or updates to the
epel-release that conflicts, but I would not really like that
personally. That forces things to be removed when it's not really
giving people the choice of running the old thing still. (Perhaps
internally where security doesn't matter so much to them). 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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