radical suggestion for fc4 release

seth vidal skvidal at phy.duke.edu
Tue Feb 1 15:10:02 UTC 2005

On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 16:02 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 09:50 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 09:28:45 +0000 (GMT), Mark J Cox <mjc at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > What would be incredibly useful is to move (to being a Provides) the CVE
> > > names for issues that we're including a backported fix for.  Where we've
> > > moved to an upstream version that contains fixes those CVE names are less
> > > important as they can be deduced by a simple NV check.
> > 
> > I look forward to building pathological packages that have a requires
> > on a CVE name provides.
> fedora-secure-system 
> could require all the CVE's that are ciritical to be fixed 
> yum update fedora-secure-system 
> would then only pull security updates down....

I agree with Jeremy. I think this is data that should be housed outside
of the package. We're going to need to figure out how to do this anyway.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list