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: Casey Harkins <charkins AT upl.cs.wisc.edu>
  • To: Jason Flatt <jason AT flattfamily.com>
  • Cc: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery] Update Options . . .
  • Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 18:33:48 -0500 (CDT)


I have essentially the same problem here, a number of machines (servers
and soon to be workstations) all running SourceMage, but the automated
updates scare me! I submitted a proposal to sm-discuss a few months ago on
how a binary packaging system could be used to abstract the building to a
single machine, offering a test bed before pushing tested binaries out to
the production machines.

I've got the utility for doing this almost finished. It allows you to
create any number of grimoires and add spells to them based on the running
system. Running 'binery update' updates the spells in these grimoires to
match the versions installed on the local machine and generates a binary
package for each updated spell. This grimoire can then be used on any
other machine just as any source based grimoire would be used.

If your interested in having a look drop me a note. I'm hoping to get it
tested over the next few days. If all goes well, I'll throw together some
docs and a spell for it and announce it on sm-discuss.


-casey



On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Jason Flatt wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Friday, October 24, 2003 11:56 am, Eric Sandall wrote:
> > Quoting Jason Flatt <jason AT flattfamily.com>:
> > >
> > > 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
>
>
> Hmm, OK, back to the drawing board I guess. Dang it. :^)
>
>
> - --
> Jason Flatt (jason @ flattfamily . com)
> Father of five (http://www.flattfamily.com/)
> Linux user (http://www.sourcemage.org/)
> IRC Nick: Oadae Channels: #sourcemage, #lvlug Server: irc.freenode.net
> PGP Key: E992213F - 0254 9DB7 BE0E 312D 8352 6E39 0700 FB95 E992 213F
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE/mflzBwD7lemSIT8RAjiZAKCK0hTogiXY82rhI7dtVQesxFInhgCfajtB
> S4VTPWkPDCvZDOkhcshuMj8=
> =R5qC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Sorcery mailing list
> SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery
>






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page