Scott Lawrence wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 14:39 -0400, Damian Krzeminski wrote: >> Joe Attardi wrote: >>> Damian Krzeminski wrote: >>>> "Minor version upgrade" - from 4.0.2 to 4.0.3 (but not to 4.2) >>>> "Major version upgrade" - from 4.0 to 4.2 >>> What about updating the operating system packages as we discussed in the >>> meeting? Are we still going to support that? >>> >>> If so, we should probably keep them separate - i.e. there are two >>> categories of updates - "sipXecs/SCS updates" and "Operating system >>> updates". >>> >> Quite frankly I do not think that Helen wants to do OS system upgrades with >> that. >> >> There are all kinds of reasons why it's not a good idea. >> We (as in sipXecs developers) have absolutely no control on what will be >> upgraded and how it'll affect running version of sipx. What if we upgrade >> to some kernel version that breaks something. What if a new version of tar >> utility breaks restore scripts (it actually happened once). > > I don't agree. I think that we should just let the package management > system handle what gets updated. I do think that our _notification_ of > pending updates should be limited to those from the sipXecs repository, > but the actual update must include all configured repositories so that > dependencies can be resolved. > > >
I thought about it some more and I am OK with it: I am probably just paranoid because my system pulls from couple of testing repos. So translating into implementation: the difference is do we execute: yum upgrade # OS upgrade Instead of: yum upgrade sipxecs # sipxecs and dependencies only It's easy to flip back into more conservative mode if we have to many issues. D. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
