[CentOS-devel] SIGs, versions, and yum update

George Dunlap dunlapg at umich.edu
Wed Feb 10 17:00:54 UTC 2016


On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:36 PM, George Dunlap <dunlapg at umich.edu> wrote:
> A couple of weeks ago I was just about to push an update of Xen 4.4 to
> Xen 4.6 to the Virt SIG repositories, and I suddenly got some
> push-back from the users, because Xen 4.6 has some fairly significant
> changes -- particularly the removal of the old toolstack daemon called
> xend.  (xend had been disabled by default and had lots of messages
> warning about the upcoming deprecation, even in 4.4.)
>
> It seems some users have the expectation that they should be able to
> run "yum update -y" on their servers on a regular basis, without
> having to worry about accidentally updating to a new major version
> that break things.
>
> So one thing that was proposed was that we make separate packages
> somehow, such that users would have to actively request the newer
> version rather than getting it automatically.  (This could be done
> either by having a package named xen46, or by having separate
> centos-release-xen-46 package that pointed to an entirely different
> repository.)
>
> But of course, other users pushed back on that idea, saying they would
> always rather have the latest version Just Work, and didn't like the
> idea of having to manually keep track of what version was installed on
> any given system, or of actually finding out that there's a new
> package and what that new package name is.
>
> KB and I chatted about it at the Virt SIG meeting, and decided that we
> should touch base with the other SIGs to have a consistent message.
>
> As for my own opinion: I can see both sides of the story, and as a
> package maintainer I'd be willing to do either one.
>
> But on the whole I tend to side with the "latest version" crowd.  I
> think you should always be looking at what "yum update" gives you
> before installing it; even minor updates I can't guarantee are going
> to break things.  And I'd rather the installation instructions be
> simple (don't have to mess around with version numbers), and I'd
> rather people not have to fish around for major updates (or run
> packages with unpatched security vulnerabilities because they didn't
> realize their packages were now obsolete).
>
> What do other SIGs think?

Splitting the difference from a user point of view, here's another option:

* Have a separate repo for each major version
* Have the centos-release-xen-NN packages which always point to a specific repo
* Have the centos-release-xen package always point to the most recent repo

This is a tiny bit more infrastructure work, but makes it easier to
test both minor releases and major releases; it also makes it easier
for volunteers to step up and maintain older versions if they want.

 -George


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list