Rex Dieter wrote:
Tom Horsley wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:56:30 -0500
Rex Dieter wrote:
OK, so a broken dep is found somewhere, now what? Stop the presses,
manually find what is broke, restart updates-push from the beginning?
Not fun.
But what happens now is the presses DON'T stop, but just spew
the broken updates to the world. And presumably the whole push-updates
process still has to happen again to get the fix pushed to the
world. I don't see anything particularly wrong with the "stop
the presses" model to postpone things till the updates are
in a sane state again.
And, if this batch of updates included critical (security or otherwise)
fixes, that wouldn't influence your opinion?
I don't buy breaking the machine to protect it as a security model. But to turn
the question around, should critical changes be pushed as a separate task? If
there is something critical, which happens rarely, should that go out by itself,
and let other changes wait?
The notification tool offers the option of security updates only, so clearly
some thought has been given to getting the important stuff visible and available
without other updates.
I can't tell if that would be relatively easy, but since the critical stuff is
identified now, pushing that separately might be possible, and certainly desirable.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
