On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 16 June 2014 09:22, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> 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?) >> > > Rebooting during an update is equivalent of turning off the power and > turning it back on during an update. It happens some small amount and as a > system administrator you are to expect it to happen at some point. If > systemd can stop me from pulling the power on the system.. that is a bit too > HAL for me :). You missed the point ... -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
