Le samedi 31 janvier 2015 02:11:43 William Gathoye a écrit :
>I'm silently following this discussion from the start
...
> Thus, big +1 for more warnings in the future.
One more silent follower : I think it's the DBA's responsibility to know what
he's doing when upgrading his box. Blind upgrade o
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015, at 08:11 PM, William Gathoye wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 01/29/2015 07:01 PM, Georg Altmann wrote:
> > On 29.01.2015 17:40, Don deJuan wrote: I am merely _suggesting_ to
> > implement a warning message. It certainly _is_ easy to miss
> >
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015, at 08:11 PM, William Gathoye wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 01/29/2015 07:01 PM, Georg Altmann wrote:
> > On 29.01.2015 17:40, Don deJuan wrote: I am merely _suggesting_ to
> > implement a warning message. It certainly _is_ easy to miss
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/29/2015 07:01 PM, Georg Altmann wrote:
> On 29.01.2015 17:40, Don deJuan wrote: I am merely _suggesting_ to
> implement a warning message. It certainly _is_ easy to miss
> something in the "pacman -Suy" output. As such, I think this would
> be
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 17:40, 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 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
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
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Patrick Burroughs wrote:
>
> I agree, and a message from pacman as I've multiply stated should be in
> place seems perfectly sufficient notification to me — you DO read all
> your messages from pacman, don't you?
Please keep your passive aggressive personal attack
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:08:47 -0600 Troy Engel wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Patrick Burroughs
> wrote:
> >
> > They ARE routine, though. When dealing with databases anything more
>
> Respectfully, they are not routine for what's being discussed.
Perhaps we're running into semantic
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Patrick Burroughs wrote:
>
> They ARE routine, though. When dealing with databases anything more
Respectfully, they are not routine for what's being discussed. The
vendor themselves packages the binaries for each release into separate
packaged versions, with each
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:25:48 -0800 Andrej Podzimek
wrote:
> Well, version changes that require a non-trivial manual intervention
> are certainly not "routine". There have been many bugfix version
> updates of PostgreSQL that required no action at all. Those would
> definitely qualify as "routine"
Next time reading pacman -Syu output before hitting Y would be even
nicer. ;-)
You know what, sometimes their is just so much on the screen to catch
all the messages for things like this. I was hit with the same
problem and had a server down for almost a day. This should have
been posted on th
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:54:17 -0700 Squall Lionheart
wrote:
> > Next time reading pacman -Syu output before hitting Y would be even
> > nicer. ;-)
>
> You know what, sometimes their is just so much on the screen to catch
> all the messages for things like this. I was hit with the same
> problem a
>
> Next time reading pacman -Syu output before hitting Y would be even nicer.
> ;-)
You know what, sometimes their is just so much on the screen to catch all
the messages for things like this. I was hit with the same problem and
had a server down for almost a day. This should have been posted
> Next time a heads up would be nice, so I know I have to dump and restore
> beforehand.
Next time reading pacman -Syu output before hitting Y would be even nicer. ;-)
I use IgnorePkg for postgresql and postgresql-libs on my servers.
--
-Nowaker
www.virtkick.io
Hi,
There was nothing mentioning a minor realease upgrade or did I miss
something?
Next time a heads up would be nice, so I know I have to dump and restore
beforehand.
Thanks!
Georg
--
PGP-Key: 0x1E320E65
D150 7783 A0D1 7507 1266 C5B3 BBF1 9C42 1E32 0E65
I don't like the idea of secret agen
24 matches
Mail list logo
