On 03/02/2016 10:42 AM, Mark Milhollan wrote: > I understand that some people might be trying to cherry-pick their > updates and the assertion that doing so is not supported. But that is > not the only way in which --security can be used and it is a bit boring > to continually see whining about the assumptive use. > > For me it is about scheduling -- it would answer the question: Does this > system need updating immediately, vs scheduled for / deferred until a > convenient time. > > I wish --security was functional and I do not accept that because it can > be abused that it should therefore never be. That CentOS as yet has no > way to make it functional is sad, and I hope that the lack is not due to > the assumed use resulting in it being ignored. That is not the reason, I have posted the reason several times .. including in this thread. We do not have enough space on donated mirrors and the data required for the xml file is not redistributable. It is not being ignored, it was designed to be used within rhn and since we give CentOS away for free, we can't buy the machines or bandwidth we need to include all rpms in all trees. Even if we could do that, we can't steal information and redistribute it if it is not licensed for such distribution.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
