Plan for Today's (20070625) Release Engineering meeting

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 08:09:44PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Monday 25 June 2007 18:40:54 Axel Thimm wrote:
> > The reason is that if you build a security update against F7 &
> > updates-released in 12 months and this requires a library that has
> > been updated since F7's release (but not due to security), you will
> > end up with a broken security update on a system following only
> > security updates. So you're left with the following options:
> >
> > o forget about a security updates only mechanism, whether this is a
> >   yum-plugin or a separate repo
> > o Elevate all dependencies of a security update to become part of the
> >   virtual or real security-update repo
> > o Build security updates only against F7 & security updates, not all
> >   the updates (and only elevate non-security updates to security
> >   status to fulfill otherwise missing dependencies.
> >
> > At first the yum-plugin sounds like the easy way out, but it will
> > generate more issues than it will solve especially the more F7 will be
> > aging.
> 
> Or simply design the yum-plugin to consider security updates only for 
> upgrades, then depsolve from there.  It would be akin to just running 'yum 
> update <list of packages>'.  It wouldn't look at your entire package set for 
> potential updates, just what you give it, and what it needs to depsolve from 
> there.  In fact, I think that's the way the current plugin works.

If for example glibc has been updated yum update foo will not pull it
in. Try it.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070626/125b11f7/attachment.sig>