On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Audioslave - 7M3 - Live wrote: >Maybe adding some filenaming scheme, that addresses backported security fixes, >might be an easily identifyable mark that users will get accustiomed to. >Instead of naming the rpm as 1.1.3, when the most part of errata warnings >point to this version as a security risk. Maybe adding something like >1.1.3.bp-sec.rpm. This would still let the user know that it was addressed >with the secrity patch, but is still a few versions behind the mainstream >program version that are out there. > >If the whole reason that a program was upgraded to the newer versioning, then >the newer version number would be the better method to address the upgrade.
It would be a lot of effort for no real gain. It's no harder to tell users "we backport security fixes" as it would be to tell people what the special file naming semantics were. It would be trading one non-problem for another non-problem. I really do not think the number of users out there that have this "problem" are very large, but most of all...... You just can't save the world. No matter how hard you try. You can't be all things to all people, and if you do try, then you end up being nothing to nobody. The best thing to do, is to do what you do best, hold your head up high, and march on, hoping to be successful, doing what you believe is the right thing. And that's what IMHO, we're doing. Now on to the next thread.... -- Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat -- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
