On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Les Mikesell wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 17:19:34 -0600,
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The one that matters is that fedora isn't suitable for machine that need
to be stable and reliable. I've always thought that a quick, easy
solution to most surprises would be to let yum take a date/time option and
ignore all updates after that time. That way you could stay almost up to
date on your critical machines while watching the mail list for complaints
by people with the newer changes. And, you could update a test machine
and after testing, reliably update other boxes to the same versions that
you tested even if new updates had gone in the repository.
You'd probably want the time specified as an interval to lag, rather than
a date.
That's trivial to compute, so it doesn't need to be part of the application.
What I really want are reliable, repeatable updates once I've done one and
tested on a non-critical box, and I'd also like it to play nice with a
caching web proxy. Using a random pick from a mirrorlist every run screws up
both of those concepts, even if you could pin the timestamp of the last
update you want to consider.
The workaround for this feature is trivial. We set up our own local
repository (initially because updating a new config over the internet was
so slow compared with ethernet speeds, but now we do it with installs and
have eliminated swapping CDs). Just push approved updates (instead of
blindly rsync'ing the part of the tree that interests you), and you're
done.
Steve Friedman
