Bug 106916 - Security patches should only have a single RPM versus per-version
Summary: Security patches should only have a single RPM versus per-version
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: distribution (Show other bugs)
(Show other bugs)
Version: 9
Hardware: All Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Bill Nottingham
QA Contact: Brock Organ
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2003-10-13 14:55 UTC by Doug Sibley
Modified: 2014-03-17 02:39 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2003-10-13 19:46:34 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Doug Sibley 2003-10-13 14:55:06 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686) Gecko/20030807 Galeon/1.3.5

Description of problem:
Security patches now come in varieties for each release of redhat often with
many different RPMs to install per update. It would be much easer to have a
single RPM per bug report that would detect the redhat-release and apply all
necessary updates.

This is essentially what happens with a Windows security patch and I see no
reason why Linux should not have this automated as well. Failing this, please
put in appropriate checks to ensure that sysadmins do not apply the wrong patch
and muck things up (the most recent pine patch for  will happily install via rpm
on the wrong redhat-release and break pine.)

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Download multiple-patches
2. Install (without complaint even if wrong)
3. Wonder why there can't be a single patch that auto-detects versions available
    

Additional info:

Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2003-10-13 15:42:18 UTC
This is a packaging, not rpm, RFE.

Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2003-10-13 19:46:34 UTC
I don't think this is going to happen; this would require more infrastructure
changes than is practical to implement at this point; moreover, having security
updates go through completely different packaging procedures than normal
packages would be impractical.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.