Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-sorcery - Re: [SM-Sorcery] Update Options . . .

sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Paul Mahon <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
  • To: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
  • Cc: sm-sorcery <sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery] Update Options . . .
  • Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 01:20:43 -0500

Those aren't problems that a good policy and a lot of work can't solve.
However, it's A LOT of extra work.

On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 13:56, Eric Sandall wrote:
> Quoting Jason Flatt <jason AT flattfamily.com>:
> > I realize I'm opening up a can of worms here, but I thought I'd throw an
> > idea
>
> I have some birds that can help with that. :)
>
> > out to see what others thought of it.
> >
> > A little background: I have two servers running SMGL that have not been
> > updated in a while, one of them in over a year. I am concerned that
> > automatically updating a system will break it and I'll have to run over
> > and
> > fix it, and I don't necessarily want to sit in front of the computer for
> > hours watching lines of text scroll off the screen, so I don't update. I
> > realize that SMGL is much more stable now than it ever has been, but the
> > thought of having to drop everything, to fix a broken computer that
> > wasn't
> > broken before I started, keeps me from updating them.
> >
> > I have been wondering how I could keep those servers more up to date
> > automatically w/o fearing the breakage. Here is one idea.
> >
> > What I'm wondering is if it would be possible to create a description or
> > level
> > of a spell update and a way to update a system only to that level. For
> > example, using something like a FIX_LEVEL variable in DETAILS or a
> > separate
> > FIX_LEVEL file which has a set of predefined settings like security, bug
> > and
> >
> > normal (as examples, feel free to expand or modify). Then running
> > something
> >
> > like 'sorcery system-update security' would only update sorcery and those
> > spells which have been marked as security fixes, etc.
> >
> > Then I could feel reasonably comfortable that an automated update run
> > weekly
> >
> > would not break the computer and/or would be easier to locate and fix a
> > problem.
> >
> > Thoughts, comments, opinions?
>
> The main problem with this (that I see) is how do you know when to change
> the
> severity? Lets say I add a patch to fix some security hole, so I set
> FIX_LEVEL="security", I then fix a small bug in the package: Should I change
> FIX_LEVEL to "bug", or leave it at "security"? If you only wanted
> "security"
> updates, and hadn't updated between those two fixes, and we now changed
> FIX_LEVEL to the latest change, you wouldn't get the security fix.
>
> Now, lets say that we get past that problem there, and it's now a year
> later and
> I do a version update, so FIX_LEVEL="version", and you hadn't updated back
> then
> when the "security" and "bug" fixes came out for some reason, now the
> FIX_LEVEL
> is just "version" and you recently decide to update, but the level is only
> "version", which doesn't match your paranoid setting of "security" only, you
> won't receive the security update (which is probably included in the new
> version) nor the spell bug fix.
>
> I think it would just add an extra layer of complexity. Also, don't we
> already
> support some SECURITY file/field?
>
> I'm not sure if this is quite what you were thinking, so feel free to
> lambast me
> with your whit. ;)
>
> -sandalle
--
De mortuis nihil nisi bonum.

What is that funny looking stuff in the attachment?
http://www.technomom.com/cynthia/pgp/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page