On Tuesday 25 October 2005 11:06, Jesse Keating wrote: >On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 09:59 -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote: >> 166941 started out as a bug for many somethings, all of them totally >> unrelated to rh73. Even the Summary suggests it has nothing to do >> with rh73. > >Unfortunately thats going to happen. A bug will be filed regarding one >aspect of a flaw, but under investigation it will appear that there are >many things affected by the flaw and thus must be fixed. In the effort >of simplicity, these are all tracked by the top level bug. I can ask >that if other packages are going to be involved, either edit the first >bug title, or file a secondary bug referencing the package, then close >it pointing to the first bug. That way the bug can be found by searches >and it will lead you to the master bug. > >This stuff isn't easy, and there are bound to be an odd package or 2 >like this that crop up. Sorry. In attempting to update the mod_ssl package on my firewall/gateway, I note that yum doesn't recognize the check-updates command, and when I told it to update mod_ssl, it didn't spit out the name of the file, just asked if this was ok. Do I need a newer yum and or yum.conf on that rh7.3 box? -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) 99.35% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
