[CentOS-devel] moving the CR repo into mainstream release

Tue Nov 22 00:05:49 UTC 2011
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Stephen Walsh <steve at nerdvana.org.au> wrote:
>  On 11/22/2011 10:43 AM, Tom Sorensen wrote:
>> FSVO risk, sure. Except that upstream recommends this all the time
>> when troubleshooting customer systesms.
>> IOW, the risk is exceptionally small.
> With a nice support contract and an army of willing RH engineers on the
> other end of a phone, yes, the risk is small.

And you are running the same code...

> For $Johnny_webhost, who takes his daily income from his business, and
> can't afford the above mentioned support on his rack full of EL boxes
> (which is why he uses centos), he needs to balance the risk of losing
> customers due a security incident vs running a full up to date and
> stable system with a mix of current and upcoming release packages, and
> all with the knowledge in his head and what he can get from the main
> centos list (most of which last time I looked appeared to be a
> conversation about why you should use ubuntu over centos).
> The Lowest Common Denominator is the one we need to think about here.
> The end user that wants EL stability and security, but can't afford to
> spend the money on upstream subscriptions.

The question is whether this person would be better off getting
security updates that were built post-minor-rev-update or not in a
default 'yum update'.   It's a yes or no question, where recommending
doing one thing and making the default something else doesn't make a
lot of sense.   With/without the CR approach, the non-security related
updates are going to come along for the ride, and you will probably
want them anyway.

  Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com