On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 10:10 +0000, Caolan McNamara wrote: > On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 10:53 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:12:43 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > But On the other hand I agree that there are many rushed/untested updates. > > > > All I wish is that we don't throw away the results of the development > > cycle so carelessly: our choice of what components we add together to > > build packages, the testing, the freeze. > > Yeah, we push *way* too many updates and too casually. Ask youself which and why? You will probably notice that in a standard installation most "really used" updates are related to kernel, OOo, evolution, firefox. The amount of updates these are seeing are outweighing many 100s of other package updates. And the package seeing the highest upgrade frequency and having the severest impact on everyday use without any doubt is everything related to SELinux. > Of course one OOo security/crasher update probably equals nearly > everything else pushed as updates put together ;-) Exactly. A couple of packages' "security updates" outweigh the rest. That's one reason for me saying trying to reduce the amount of updates is a waste of time and would lean to do being more aggressive on updates. I would expect this to lead to more stability and to _less_ updates in longer terms, because packages will see a wider exposure. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
