On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Colin Walters wrote: >> Would it be easier to do more extensive checks only for say security >> updates? Maybe we could consider splitting fedora-updates into two >> repos; fedora-updates-security and fedora-updates-all? > > That doesn't really work, because security updates in Fedora are usually > not "security only" updates, but also have other changes, Well, "other changes" most often wouldn't break depsolving I'd think. > depend on > non-security updates, Can this be banned? It doesn't seem particularly onerous to also make your dependencies security updates. > both obsolete and get obsoleted by non-security > updates etc. This one seems like it should definitely be banned in a stable update. > Having 2 separate updates repos would mean maintaining 2 > separate branches of packages like Adam Williamson is describing, one with > security updates only and one with the rest. That doubles the maintainer > workload and doesn't help the case of security updates for the packages > from "all" (because the packages in "security" would have only the security > fix and not the changes previously done in "all"). Hmm, I wasn't thinking of separate CVS branches. In other words if there was a kernel security update, then a regular update, then another security, the new security update would *always* include the regular update. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
