drago01 wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Matthew Miller > <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 05:06:45PM +0200, drago01 wrote: >>> > That's not the most descriptiony of all descriptions ever, but if the name >>> > is any indication, it is just a thing which keeps the cache up to date. >>> > yum-cron can actually apply updates [....] >>> That sounds dangerous ... updates are not really atomic (i.e not at >>> all) doing them silently in the background is a very bad idea. >> >> Yet, it works pretty well most of the time. I've done it at decent scale on >> production machines with no real issues -- and, most critically, with >> *fewer* issues than on unpatched systems. >> >> Real issues do _occasionally_ occur, but so do bad disks, failed ram, bad >> offline updates, etc., etc. Fear over lack of atomicity is letting "it's not >> perfect!" get in the way of real world usefulness. >> >> Additionally, these updates aren't _silent_ -- they're logged and there's an >> e-mailed report. > > Well I meant things like: > > Admin: "OK I will reboot box 'foo'" > <reboots box 'foo' that was running an update> > *boom* > > (well actually that case can be "solved" by using systemd-inhibitors > ... does it do that?) This server is almost never rebooted, and in many years running yum-cron I've never had any problem. What is the difference between automated update vs. a manual update, in terms of potential for problems anyway? -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
