On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 10:00 -0400, Tom Sightler wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 06:28 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: > > Tom Sightler wrote: > > > Another way to look at the same situation is this though (from RH's > > perspective) is ... we already broke something that created the other > > problem with a regression, so we don't want to make it worse with a > > quick fix that breaks something else that potentially effects even more > > customers than the first issue. > > I can understand this, but I'll make at least one couterpoint. In most > cases, the regression seems to be found and identified quickly, yet > Redhat continues to leave the broken package out there, allowing more > and more customers to go from a working setup to a broken as they > update.
Hmm, just saw this in the Slashdot RSS feed - suggesting that the latest Red Hat bind update overrides current named.conf files with the default associated with caching nameservers http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/18/1210257&from=rss Makes me wonder why there isn't a Red Hat security RSS feed (or perhaps there is, and I've missed it). Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
