Orphaning system-auto-death

[Matt McCutchen]

On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 18:54 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 06:43 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 18:33 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> On 12/16/2010 06:26 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 18:13 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>>> Just a thought: How about equipping a repo's metadata with some sort of
> >>>> "expiration"/"best before" date, which yum etc. could use to warn users?
> >>>> If we had something like this, system-auto-death etc. would become
> >>>> superfluous.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> it would mean we'd have to be able/willing to push new metadata out to
> >>> the base repo so that the repo could be used at all for future installs.
> >> Not necessarily -  Yum could simply issue a warning and continue to
> >> work, yum could have a --disable-expiration-warnings option, ...
> >>
> >> There are many possibilities
> >
> > Rather than push the issue onto the user,
> I don't think this is "pushing the issue onto the user". I'd consider 
> this to be warning them about "you might be doing something unwise".
> 
> > I think the right solution
> > would be for the "fedora" repo definition to have an option
> > "updated_by=updates" that causes yum not to check its expiration when
> > the "updates" repo is also enabled.
> Yes, this would also be an alternative, except that one also would have 
> to take users into account who run "plain DVD Fedora w/o updates" and 
> use-cases which run entirely off-line.

I was referring to the issue Seth raised where using the "fedora" repo
would produce an expiration warning that is bogus (i.e., the user is not
at risk) provided that the "updates" repo is also enabled.  That can and
should be solved on our end.

Showing the warning to users who don't use the updates repo is correct
behavior, though we could separately have an option for the user to hide
the warning if they already know about it and find it annoying.

-- 
Matt