Quoting "Pettit, Paul" <ismanager@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Eric Rostetter > > > > Quoting "Pettit, Paul" <ismanager@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > > Heh, well do you happen to know when the yum auto update > > runs? You are > > > > When ever you tell it to. > > > > Ooooh, so tempting ... For some. > Um, no. It runs when cron.daily runs and that runs at ONE time in the > day. Move the time cron.daily runs and you move the time a ton of other > things run. It runs when you told it to. You put it in cron.daily, so it runs when cron.daily runs. You could have told it to run at any time you wanted, in any way you wanted. > Remember we are talking with the *stock* setup as detailed in the > documentation. Assuming you made the choice to enable auto updates per the docs. > > > aware of the impact that FL's documentation has if you simply follow > > > step 4 and make no other changes? > > > > So why don't you propose changes to the docs? > > > > Actually the docs really aren't a problem other than maybe a warning on > the impact of auto-updating for those less familure and maybe a list of > problematic major package other than kernel that should be excluded. Exactly what I mean. > But the docs are spot on for setup and that's really what they are for > so no real issue there. No, if the docs offer the info to do auto-updates, then they are also the correct place to document the issues involved with auto-updates. > > > It is FL's documentation after all so > > > > FL is a community. The docs are the community's docs. As part of the > > community, they are now your docs also. If you find fault in them, > > help change them. > > > > Considering the above I'll see what I can do. That would be wonderful. I'll modify them when I get a chance, unless someone beats me to it, but it could be a few days before I get to it. Anyone who wants to update them, please feel free to do so. You can modify them in the wiki, or modify them and post a diff to the mailing list, or contact me directly via email about changes. > Just why is scheduling updates (or limiting them to business days in > what ever TZ your in) bad? You rejected it but with no actual > explaination. Because what good does it do to limit them in my TZ when someone else is in another TZ? Because I may not know what your holiday schedule is. Because you may simply be on vacation (no official holiday) and have the same problem. Because the delay my result in your not getting the security update until after your machine was hacked, even though the patch was available and ready. Do I really need to go on? > Anyway, people (inc. me) have already made suggestions that are > independent of FL being responsive. Thanks though, if I think I'll get > some help I'll contact you. I still can't figure out why you say FL isn't responsive. I've already committed to changes to help with this situation. Not to mention all the mails that people have shared about it. > > With all the e-mails this thread is generating, how could you think it > > is of no concern to us? > > Because you have rejected the problem without explination of why you NO! We've not rejected the problem! We've rejected your solution. > feel this isn't a problem beyond the "you shouldn't use auto-updating" > or "it's a yum problem" answer of which neither is valid. As stewards of > these updates you bear a bit more responsibility than that. And we're taking such responsibility. Sorry if you can't see that. -- Eric Rostetter -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
