Re: Initial Proposal for doing Enterprise Extras

["Mike McGrath" <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/23/06, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rex Dieter (rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx) said:
> > Offhand, I couldn't disagree more.  You mean you'd rather live with the bugs
> > that those 100+ package updates fix?  No thanks.  If you don't want the
> > churn, then don't update your el4 boxen.
>
> So, you're requiring the user to explicitly browse the updates for
> security vs. non-security fixes, for example?
>
> Bill

This is a tricky topic to discuss because the answer isn't so clear.
On the one hand we should hold the EPEL packages to a high standard
because that just comes along with being 'enterprise'.  On the other
hand, we should assume our users will be knowledgeable professionals
who, if need be, have their own policies and procedures in place to
update packages and would therefore find broken packages before they
make it into production environments.  Its hard to find that line
where we start trusting the user to make the right decision for their
environment.

/2 cents

           -Mike

--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list