> Say on day 1 you deploy an update to all the machines in your enterprise > "install foo-1.2.3-2" > > .. then on day 2 you ship "install newthing-1.2.3-2" (never been on the > machines before). > > .. and on day 3 you ship "install foo-1.2.3-4". > > .. but on day 2, 5 laptops where away in a conference with no > connectivity to get your updates. When the laptops come back they get > your new "install foo-1.2.3-4" command, but when do they get newthing? > > With a procedural (action based) approach it's really ugly to make sure > every machine gets all the updates. It gets worse if you have a series > of install, uninstall, install actions that a machine missed while it > was disconnected. This is why you don't specify the versions. > ATM I think that a combination of rpm groups and declarative listsings > of what a machine should look like are likely to give the best usability > characteristiscs. > > Does anyone else have any opinions on this? Maybe I've been brainwashed? Alternatively you use groupupdate and just plugin new things to a group as 'default' or 'mandatory' then when a user can: yum groupupdate 'carwyn group of fun' and get all the packages you want them to have. -sv
