Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:

I'm sure you all appreciate people are running *enterprise linux* for a
reason, and do not want to bother with package foo like this like if it
were Fedora.


Breaking user configuration shouldn't be done in Fedora updates either.

Rahul

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

Rahul Sundaram wrote:

Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:

I'm sure you all appreciate people are running *enterprise linux* for
a reason, and do not want to bother with package foo like this like if
it were Fedora.


Breaking user configuration shouldn't be done in Fedora updates either.



This isn't about Fedora. This doesn't concern Fedora.

I just wish I could count on the Enterprise Linux branch - with or
without EPEL and/or subscriptions and/or a toll-free number - to be more
stable, so that there's actually a good (and valid!) reason to use it.


--
Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@kanarip.com> wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> >
> >> I'm sure you all appreciate people are running *enterprise linux* for
> >> a reason, and do not want to bother with package foo like this like if
> >> it were Fedora.
> >
> > Breaking user configuration shouldn't be done in Fedora updates either.
> >
>
> This isn't about Fedora. This doesn't concern Fedora.
>
> I just wish I could count on the Enterprise Linux branch - with or
> without EPEL and/or subscriptions and/or a toll-free number - to be more
> stable, so that there's actually a good (and valid!) reason to use it.
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
>
> Jeroen van Meeuwen
> -kanarip
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>
Do you test every update before you automatically apply it to
production systems? 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. If you
suicide update, I don't think it's very fair to get mad at the
volunteers trying to provide you software. Yes, it was a bug in
puppet. I understand this. They shipped it, we packaged it.

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.

stahnma

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

Michael Stahnke wrote:

Do you test every update before you automatically apply it to
production systems?


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
thing, right?


If you

suicide update, I don't think it's very fair to get mad at the
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@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).


Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@kanarip.com> wrote:
> Michael Stahnke wrote:
> > Do you test every update before you automatically apply it to
> > production systems?
>
> 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
> thing, right?
>

I agree its bad, but I know that its going to happen no matter how
diligent Red Hat is in testing things... and so I need to be prepared
to deal with it.

>
> If you
> > suicide update, I don't think it's very fair to get mad at the
> > 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@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.
>

Someone should have caught this in epel-testing. However, I am not
sure we have enough people using it for it to be 'useful' in all
cases. It would be great if we had a formal test-buddy for every
package that said "Tested package, ran through results, and works for
me." but we currently do not. If you can help out on this with puppet
it would be appreciated.





--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list