2015-01-28 20:28 GMT+01:00 Georg Altmann :
> Hi,
>
> There was nothing mentioning a minor realease upgrade or did I miss
> something?
It's been fun to watch how this thread developed.
On the one hand; as admin/owner/root of your machine, you are the one
responsible for anything that happens with
On 01/29/2015 10:01 AM, Georg Altmann wrote:
> On 29.01.2015 17:40, Don deJuan wrote:
> > From someone who runs Arch in prod on a ton of servers. It was the
> > admins fault. Not arch's not pacman's and not PGSQL's it was the
> > admin.
>
> > Running a rolling release in prod requires the ability
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 29.01.2015 17:44, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 at 17:06:43, Georg Altmann wrote:
>> [...] On 29.01.2015 14:22, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
>>> If the problem here is that it would be a chore to do this for
>>> maintainers for every X.Y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 29.01.2015 17:40, Don deJuan wrote:
> From someone who runs Arch in prod on a ton of servers. It was the
> admins fault. Not arch's not pacman's and not PGSQL's it was the
> admin.
>
> Running a rolling release in prod requires the ability to pay
On 01/29/2015 05:40 PM, Don deJuan wrote:
> From someone who runs Arch in prod on a ton of servers. It was the
> admins fault. Not arch's not pacman's and not PGSQL's it was the admin.
You might try putting yourself in others' shoes when evaluating their
opinions.
Not everybody is running Arch in
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 at 17:06:43, Georg Altmann wrote:
> [...]
> On 29.01.2015 14:22, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> > If the problem here is that it would be a chore to do this for
> > maintainers for every X.Y -> X.(Y+1) upgrade, then maybe Arch
> > package descriptions could grow a field or flag to
On 01/29/2015 05:51 AM, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> On 01/29/2015 02:24 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Bardur Arantsson
>> wrote:
>>> On 01/29/2015 01:00 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
> You could also write a pac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 29.01.2015 16:33, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 at 16:08:02, Carl Schaefer wrote:
>> The thread about the postgresql update reminded me of one of the
>> few things about Ubuntu that I miss: package updates usually
>> included a usef
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 at 16:08:02, Carl Schaefer wrote:
> The thread about the postgresql update reminded me of one of the few
> things about Ubuntu that I miss: package updates usually included a
> useful changelog entry describing what was fixed and/or new. Perhaps I
> assume too much, but I imagi
The thread about the postgresql update reminded me of one of the few
things about Ubuntu that I miss: package updates usually included a
useful changelog entry describing what was fixed and/or new. Perhaps I
assume too much, but I imagine Arch package maintainers would generally
be aware of the ch
On 01/29/2015 02:24 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Bardur Arantsson
> wrote:
>> On 01/29/2015 01:00 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
You could also write a pacman wrapper that interferes with pacman's
executio
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> On 01/29/2015 01:00 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
>>> You could also write a pacman wrapper that interferes with pacman's
>>> execution upon specific output.
>
> (Doesn't scale to more th
On 01/29/2015 01:00 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
>> You could also write a pacman wrapper that interferes with pacman's
>> execution upon specific output.
(Doesn't scale to more than one user since nobody else is going to be
using that script.)
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
> You could also write a pacman wrapper that interferes with pacman's
> execution upon specific output.
> Then you could have loud warning signals, send emails that get you
> fired and an automatic backup to the NSA, or NAS, as you like.
>
To
You could also write a pacman wrapper that interferes with pacman's
execution upon specific output.
Then you could have loud warning signals, send emails that get you
fired and an automatic backup to the NSA, or NAS, as you like.
cheers!
mar77i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Looks like I hit quite a nail here. Let me describe my usecase. I was
doing this on my personal box. If it was on a production server, I
would have looked three times before doing an upgrade of any kind.
I would refrain from having a rolling release di
16 matches
Mail list logo
