RHN Updates

[Matthew Winter]

Jef Spaleta wrote:
>Gilles J. Seguin wrote, somewhere in the digest:
>>The third item require that peoples with a minimum of training
>>be able to install and play with a package.
>
>Yes i understand that submitting useful bugreports doesnt take much in
>the way of training...neither does breaking a working system, without
>fully understanding the consquences of your actions :->
>
>But I'm more concerned about getting into a situation where the
>convience tools...the point and click tools like up2date...start
>getting features where people can easily install 'testing' packages
>on top of full releases..without having to stop and think about what
>they are doing...when they have no intention of actually being a part
>of the testing process...and don't have a clue about how to recover if
>the testing packags are broken.

If RHN was providing the means to upgrade to a 'test' version of the
software, it could also provide the means for the use to return to their
prior release of the software, so making the recovery process straight
forward.

Another option, would be to provide a different version of the RHN
software within the Beta ISO's, so allowing people who have already took
the risk of installing the Beta ISO to also test future / unstable
packages. Again providing a use for RHN subscription during the beta
process. I would have thought this could be as simple as changing a
configuration file to point the RHN software at a beta/test server.