|| ||Adam Williamson <awilliam-AT-redhat.com> |
|| ||Development discussions related to Fedora <devel-AT-lists.fedoraproject.org> |
|| ||Re: fedup: does not verify source |
|| ||Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:58:06 -0800|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Sun, 2012-12-16 at 22:00 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-12-16 at 21:15 -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Björn Persson
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Except for Yum, which has for years been the only method that
> > was both
> > secure and practical anyway, but I agree. As long as people
> > are being
> > discouraged from upgrading by Yum because it's "unsupported",
> > removing
> > the only "supported" and secure upgrade method is definitely a
> > regression, and quite irresponsible.
> > I have filed a ticket for FESCo's consideration on the fedup situation
> > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/982
> > No ISO based or graphical upgrade by itself is a severe regression but
> > having no supported upgrade path that is secure is I think is just
> > unacceptable.
> Why do we even need fedup ?
> I already upgraded 2 machines with yum distro-sync w/o many issues.
> I do not understand why there isn't work on making a yum plugin if
> something out of the ordinary needs to be done to upgrade instead of
> coming up with new tools every time.
fedup essentially automates doing yum distro-sync across a reboot and in
an isolated environment, and provides an interface for hooking in any
kind of outside-of-yum-mucking-about we might need to do (like the /usr
move stuff). It's really just a slightly sophisticated framework to do
what you're suggesting.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
devel mailing list
to post comments)