[1354] in athena10
Re: Apt repository layout
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Price)
Sat Mar 7 12:50:56 2009
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 12:45:04 -0500
From: Greg Price <price@MIT.EDU>
To: Evan Broder <broder@mit.edu>
Cc: Tim Abbott <tabbott@mit.edu>, debathena@mit.edu
Message-ID: <20090307174449.GA3488@cross-cap.csail.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49B1D528.5040008@mit.edu>
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 09:00:08PM -0500, Evan Broder wrote:
> Tim Abbott wrote:
> > One or two days isn't a great testing period unless we actually make sure
> > there are machines running -standard and -workstation (or whatever they
> > change to) with -proposed installed that actually take the update during
> > that interval. So I guess I'm saying that we'll want to make sure
> > developers actually upgrade when things go out to -proposed.
>
> I can certainly promise that I'll have multiple Hardy machines running
> -standard for the near future, and I have apticron running on all of
> them, so they get updated within a day of the updates being available.
>
> -workstation machines shouldn't be a problem, because I suspect that
> many of them will be running -auto-update as well, so they should get
> updates when they show up in -proposed.
By "running -auto-update" you mean "using -proposed and running
-auto-update", right? Cluster machines run -auto-update but of course
should not be getting updates from -proposed.
SIPB office heads should use -proposed and run -auto-update; in fact, they
should probably run -managed (or whatever name it gets). That will
provide some testing. If the staff involved with Debathena also run
-auto-update and use -proposed on their desktops, that probably suffices.
Greg
