dnf replacement for yum-cron
Stephen John Smoogen
smooge at gmail.com
Mon Jun 16 17:35:24 UTC 2014
On 16 June 2014 09:22, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Matthew Miller
> <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> 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
> >> > is any indication, it is just a thing which keeps the cache up to
> >> > 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
> > 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
> > 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>
> (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 :).
Stephen J Smoogen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel