<div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Troy Dawson <<a href="mailto:tdawson@redhat.com" target="_blank">tdawson@redhat.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 12/05/2012 08:47 AM, Greg Swift wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Ken Dreyer <<a href="mailto:ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com">ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com</a> </div><div class="im">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com">ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com</a>>> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Greg Swift <<a href="mailto:gregswift@gmail.com">gregswift@gmail.com</a> </div><div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gregswift@gmail.com">gregswift@gmail.com</a>>> wrote: > > I'm personally inclined to lean toward the concept I was pushing > in the > > thread discussing multiple versions [1]. I'd imagine that a 'api > stable' > > repo and a 'rolling' repo would be less support effort than > attempting to > > manage >8 repositories per major release and the security updates > that need > > to be applied on older version. > > My main concern with multiple EPEL repos is that users will be in a > worse condition security-wise. Many users will download an application > from the "api stable" repo, but they will not realize that no one is > doing backports any more, because all the interested EPEL maintainers > left that behind to focus on the "rolling" repo. > > The analogy that comes to my mind is Fedora: What if we kept old > Fedora releases going back all the way to Fedora 6 open to maintainers > to patch on a voluntary basis, and we never really announced EOL for > any Fedora release? Fedora users would have to know enough to keep > jumping along with whatever's maintained. > > It seems to me that we have to choose between occasional instability > and insecurity. I'd rather EPEL's reputation err on the side of > instability rather than insecurity. > > > I can back that line of thought. Plus providing 1 path means less > change! :) > > > > So, unless someone wants to turn EPEL into a paid service, #1 is out > > (hey... thats an interesting concept...) > > Maybe money does have to enter the picture at some point. Corporations > should commit to pay salaries for more developers to do EPEL backports > if it's important to their businesses. > > > So... anyone got any motivation in pushing a product internally @ Red > Hat that does this? :) > > > Also.... I hadn't mentioned it before on here, because in general > mentioning tends to mean you have to do it and I don't really have the > cycles available. But as of this morning I figured I'd float the > concept anyways. > > What would it take to basically have a yum plugin would check a > 'notification' feed (something simple like rss or atom) about a specific > repository. Notifications found on that feed would throw messages in > the yum output and /var/log/messages. This feed could provide notices > like 'Hey, this version is deprecated and insecure, you need to > update'. An extension of this might be that it marks the package as an > 'exclude' if it can't just be updated without interference. This would > allow a notification method, and a way for users to not get an update if > its going to break them, but also allowing the main page to just > continuously be updated. > > Then this package could possibly be a required package from the > epel-release package. > > -greg </div></div>Not volunteering at the moment because I don't have the cycles, but I really like that idea. Something similar, except opposite, of the security plugin. If a package has the "breakable update" option set, then don't update it unless they do the "--reallyupdate" option. But also give them a nag that says the package has an update. </blockquote><div> </div><div>I'm very amused with myself for forgetting about the security plugin (mainly cause I never used it but still...) </div></div></div>