Michael Stahnke wrote:
Do you test every update before you automatically apply it to
Fedora? Yes. EL? No. I wouldn't bluntly yum -d0 -e0 -y update, but
testing the updates before applying them just doesn't scale very well.
Sure we freeze versions etc, and we might need to do so for puppet as
well. I'll get it to work, eventually, one way or the other.
I know my enterprise sure does. While normally
updates are harmless, I have seen RHEL updates (the ones we pay for)
that have erased /var/named, edited /etc/syslog.conf and probably a
lot more stuff that I can't recall off the top of my head.
Admittedly, I've seen this kind of thing too. You do agree that's a bad
suicide update, I don't think it's very fair to get mad at
volunteers trying to provide you software. Yes, it was a bug in
puppet. I understand this. They shipped it, we packaged it.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not mad. Honestly though, I /did/ get mad
(confused over my own ignorance if you will), and I realized I can't
direct that at volunteers (dlutter(a)redhat.com is the maintainer in this
case?). However, I /do/ want to find out if and how we can avoid this
kind of thing happening again in the future. Most packages live in
Fedora for a while, before they get pushed anywhere else. That process
proved itself to work quite well.
Unfortunately, right now due to people/resource constraints in EPEL,
we push RHEL4/5 and Fedora updates on a separate schedule. Fedora
uses a completely different build/update system than EPEL currently
can. There is a lot of effort underway to to move our build system
to the same as Fedora's, but still we will have a few timing issues
between Fedora and EPEL4 and EPEL5. It is less than ideal but we are
working to make it better.
I know, I'm not a complete stranger with EPEL (since Boston 2007's
FUDCon, at least).
Jeroen van Meeuwen