On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:33:04 -0500
Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:58:44AM -0600, Troy Dawson wrote:
> Not volunteering at the moment because I don't have the cycles, but
> I really like that idea.
> Something similar, except opposite, of the security plugin. If a
> package has the "breakable update" option set, then don't update it
> unless they do the "--reallyupdate" option. But also give them a
> nag that says the package has an update.
+1 to this
-a lot. ;)
Anything that requires someone to read output from updates is doomed.
If I update 100 machines, I am not going to look at all the spew from
yum, and if I don't specifically look at my logs often am I going to
notice this.
If I install a new machine with updates enabled, would I notice this
before the machine was deployed?
I don't think this is a good solution... still trying to think of
one. ;)
kevin