Re: Yum problem

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 28/10/2007, Claude Jones <cjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun October 28 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > > Hyperbole.
> > >
> > > that's a high horse you ride
> >
> > Why? In the context of this thread, the recommendation not to use "yum
> > -y" is beyond my comprehension.
>
> No it's not. You're on your mount. Your "my way or the highway" approach is
> prototypical of what's been going on on this list for several months, now.
>
> Congratulations back to you for your unpleasant pedantry.

Cast your fireball spells as much as you like.

It is way too easy to point a finger at a Fedora user after an
accident and blame him for installing a bad update or for not
verifying whether an update set was safe to install. "You could have
avoided the disastrous results if you had entered NO instead of YES".
"You could have tried out the Test Update, which nobody has had
interest in for two weeks." Great! That is the same stance as of those
people who preach of backups, because the next distribution upgrade
might do the completely unexpected and erase the /home partition's
contents, although the installer was never told to do that.

Fedora 7 is supposed to be a stable branch of the distribution.
Fedora's precious users ought to be protected from disastrous results
and should be given reason to trust *all* updates, especially the
security related ones. Unfortunate regression left aside, I don't like
it when some packagers play with fire and pipe out upgrades for Fedora
6 and 7 that put it on par with the Fedora 8 development branch just
to offer new package builds. We have a series of test releases, even
freezes, but shortly after a gold release of the distribution, we
literally throw away all that and upgrade hundreds of packages to give
the users something fresh and less tested to play with? Stuff that
puts the user into a loop, in which to evaluate lots of updates every
week, trying to gain experience with cherry-picking instead of simply
applying or ignoring all updates? Version upgrades, changes in
.rpmsave/.rpmnew files, regression - for some packages we've had
almost daily updates from upstream source code repositories.

I know testing is not easy. When upstream developers miss a problem,
package maintainers and co-maintainers don't spot it either, the built
update is made a Test Update without anyone reporting a problem [or
without anyone testing it], the single (y/n) confirmation prompt in
Yum is no silver bullet either. For instance, it won't help at all if
an RPM package post-install scriptlet runs wild on your file-system.
So, suggesting users to avoid yum's -y as the way to handle Fedora
Updates, is only going to scare users.

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux