On 20 Mar 2011, at 13:25, Akemi Yagi wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Willsher <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I've been looking through the fastbugs and errata repos and have notice some >> discrepancies with TUV. For example, RHBA-2010:0857. In TUV this is a bug in >> the main EL 6 channel. In SL it's in fastbugs. >> Also in fastbugs is RHBA-2011:0339. In TUV EL this is in FasTrack. >> Again, in fastbugs is RHEA-2010:0932. In TUV this is an enhancement in the >> main channel. >> >> This concerns me a little as this seems to mean that SL fastbugs contains >> legitimate, production ready bug fixes along with TUVs FasTrack bugs which >> are more fixes if you experience a problem type updates that normal wouldn't >> be wanted on production systems. Am I understand this correctly? > > A similar question was asked on this mailing list and Troy gave a > detailed answer : > > http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1103&L=scientific-linux-users&T=0&P=7222 > > Akemi
Thanks for pointing that post out Akemi. My apologies for not check previous mailing list posts especially when this one was so recent. However, mu concern that fastbugs contains bug fixes of a potentially lower quality (FasTrack bug fixes) than other items in that channel still stands. I can see the need for security fixes to be kept separate from other types give SL's stated goals and patch model but I'm not convinced by fastbugs containing everything else including FasTrack items. IMHO, it would be preferable to split out into two repos - a TUV bugs+enhancements repo and a FasTrack only equivalent. Matt
