On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 03:17:53PM -0400, Kyle Marek wrote: > On 06/25/2018 02:49 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > But it's useful for unattended systems in general, be it servers or > > appliances: if a boot fails there generally should be a way to recover > > the system through rebooting without manual interfering. Quite > > frankly, it's quite surprising we haven't implemented anything like > > that on Fedora/RHEL at all yet, as it's a major piece in making > > unattended system updates less risky. > > I'm still not a fan. I'm not convinced that an issue that is correctable > by booting an old kernel could be caused by a system being left > "unattended". Systems should never automatically reboot due to a kernel > update, and kernel updates really should be given administrator > attention simply *because* of the potential boot issues. Why not? If the administrator can arrange for reliable automated updates across machines (in a rolling fashion, stopping the process and reverting to the previous version on update failures), why would she want to baby-sit every single machine? You probably don't want to do this if all you have is a single machine but for fleets of mostly-interchangable servers (hosting VMs or containers), doing it this way makes perfect sense *if* it is reliable. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/KCRUEPF4BWDMOFD7A2QDFCBDI3BY6HEP/
