On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 10:39:34 -0600 Jake Edge <jake@xxxxxxx> wrote: > What I don't quite follow is whether all of those packages are in fact > updated for security reasons or whether this is just an artifact of > bodhi (or koji or something) ... I am sensing the latter ... I'm not sure. :) I think the issue was in a single package, but it may have needed the others updated as well if the fix was moving to a newer upstream version of that one package. > does 'kdepimlibs' or 'kdeedu' (to pick two at random) need to be > updated for *security* reasons? or just because it got tagged with > one (?) package that was updated to the same upstream revision > (kdeplasma-addons ... others?) Not sure. Or it could be that the one security update needed newer versions of the rest of the packages. I guess we should ask kde folks. > > I don't know if this will be handled any better in bodhi 2.0, but we > > could surely look and try and handle things better. What would you > > like to see for an update like this? Different names for each > > package? Or some what to tag only those package(s) that are security > > updates? > > Well, I would think Fedora users would only want things that are > actually security updates to marked as such ... or are all these > packages dependent on the Plasma add-ons somehow? That's what's > confusing here imo ... Yes, I think that version of plasma add-ons needs the newer rest of the kde stack, but not sure. Copying kde maintainer here for some more info... kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- security mailing list security@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/security
