News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Distribution packages considered insecure. Parent comment

Re:Distribution packages considered insecure by Qwertious on Monday February 22, 2016 @04:02AM (#11149504)
Shit, how do you get people to migrate away from cron-apt? By definition they're not around to do manual migration.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Distribution packages considered insecure by Ao7bei3s on Monday February 22, 2016 @05:49AM (#11149927)
That's what major versions are for.

(It's still in Stretch though, so you don't have to switch to unattended-upgrades until at least ~2022. https://packages.debian.org/stretch/cron-apt)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Distribution packages considered insecure by creshal on Monday February 22, 2016 @04:05AM (#11149514)
Chef, puppet, ansible, …

Or the redneck version: Have a metapackage in your own repository that uses dependencies/conflicts to pull/remove the packages you want.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Distribution packages considered insecure by majewsky on Monday February 22, 2016 @12:59PM (#11152786)
What you call "redneck" version is actually how I manage my system configuration. :)

The metapackage is the only one that's explicitly installed, ever. (Except for workstations where I might install applications to test them.) Part of system maintenance is to clean out orphaned packages every once in a while, usually as part of the system update.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Distribution packages considered insecure by stephenr on Monday February 22, 2016 @06:07PM (#11155100)
I'm a big fan of this approach too.

Combine it with config packages (using something like configure-package-dev from debathena) and you have a very nice little config management system.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Distribution packages considered insecure by creshal on Monday February 22, 2016 @02:56PM (#11153753)
> What you call "redneck" version is actually how I manage my system configuration. :)

Same here. One day I'll get around to migrate everything to Ansible… one day…

[ Parent | on HN ]