On disttags

[Rex Dieter]

Jeff Spaleta wrote:

> release foo-1.5.fc4 even if foo-1.4.fc4 was not actually affected by the errata?

I said it was an option, not a requirement to release foo-1-5.fc4.

> yeah...lets design a package naming policy that demands package
> updates on systems that are not directly affected by security errata.

Oh please stop exagerating.  It's not *that* bad.  If it makes you feel 
better, I'll even bring you a bucket for your throw up... (-:

Speaking of useless large package updates, why does redhat bundle 
koffice-i18n, k3b-i18n (these are just 2 examples) into the main koffice 
and k3b rpms, so that any updates to koffice and k3b will also "force 
users to eat useless large updates"?

Hint: we're touching on similar issues here.  I realize things are not 
so cut-and-dried.

-- Rex