automatic nightly updates

[Peter J. Holzer]

On 2005-04-22 17:26:02 -0400, Joe Harrington wrote:
> If you consider that the source of your updates is the same as the
> source of your base OS, you should in principle be happy to get any
> improvements.  Regarding non-invasiveness, anything truly malicious
> wouldn't advertize itself in the update email. 

I don't think we are talking about malicious updates here, just the risk
associated with any change. No matter how careful the vendor tests the
patches, they may still break something at the customers site. Also,
some updates require a daemon to be restarted. So if you have to
guarantee a certain service level, you don't want updates to happen at
random times on your production servers. You want to test them on your
test machines first, and when you are conviced they don't break anything
you deploy them on the production servers at a time that is convenient
to you.

	hp

-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer \Beta means "we're down to fixing misspelled comments in
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR     \the source, and you might run into a memory leak if 
| |   | hjp at wsr.ac.at     \you enable embedded haskell as a loadable module and
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ \write your plugins upside-down in lisp". --ae at op5.se
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 388 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20050423/4e630c80/attachment.sig>