On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 20:59 -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote: > The first thing the advisories all say is to make sure you've installed > all other updates before installing the latest update(s). Since I doubt > we would keep the VM image up-to-date, we'd have to assume the user will > do so... As such, is there really a big advantage to providing a base > image? Also, if this is a "minimum" system image, then many updates > won't install due to dependencies, and again would it really be worth > it? Creating the base install in the first place is somewhat time consuming. Turning it on, issuing yum update, and then running a given package, that's not so difficult. The packages people would be testing would be in updates-testing repository so deps would be autoresolved. > I'd rather see a full install myself, that can be kept updated, for the > QA. That's something we probably can't provide, image would be way too big, and maint to keep the image updated would be too much. > > In this case, the image would be the file that vmplayer software can > > use. I don't think the image file would be useful to any other > > software. > > As I've never used vmplayer, and hence never set it up, how much > work/effort does this really save over doing it manually using > _good_ instructions? I guess that is the part I'm missing... It provides you a virtual machine in which to test. Not a full piece of hardware or a life server. It is a throw away system. People can 'roll back' to the base image we provide as a known good stable controlled starting point. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
