[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Breaking deps deliberately

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin kofler chello at> 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.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]