dnf replacement for yum-cron

[drago01]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>> >> > 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 ...