Code review comment for lp:~thedac/charms/precise/postgresql/package-holding

On 18 April 2014 22:51, James Troup <email address hidden> wrote:

> So, to be clear this is not about trying to handle upgrades within the
> charm. What we're trying to do is prevent a Landscape auto-upgrade
> profile from upgrading postgres and taking down a production service
> as a result). Landscape will respect package holds, so it seems like
> (being able to) set package holds within the charm is the logical
> place to do so.

This makes me wonder if it would be better to add a list of held
packages to the Landscape subordinate charm where all services can
make use of it. This would be a little awkward, as it requires the
operator to specify the primary PostgreSQL package name, whereas the
PostgreSQL charm knows the package name to hold.

(I'm not blocking on any of this - worst case is we document the
feature as experimental if we are not sure we want to support it in
its current form)

--
Stuart Bishop <email address hidden>