Bug 150683 - Wrong update advisory id for ipsec-tools
Wrong update advisory id for ipsec-tools
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: ipsec-tools (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Bill Nottingham
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2005-03-09 12:05 EST by Bernd Bartmann
Modified: 2014-03-16 22:52 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2005-03-09 13:12:25 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Bernd Bartmann 2005-03-09 12:05:11 EST
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.6)
Gecko/20050302 Firefox/1.0.1 Fedora/1.0.1-1.3.2

Description of problem:
ipsec-tools-0.5-0.fc2 and ipsec-tools-0.5-1.fc2 were both released as

Same issue for FC3:
ipsec-tools-0.5-0.fc2 and ipsec-tools-0.5-1.fc2 were both released as

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

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. have a look at the update advisories

Additional info:
Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2005-03-09 12:17:21 EST
It's an update of the advisory.
Comment 2 Bernd Bartmann 2005-03-09 12:29:14 EST
Ok, but you released a new set of rpms with a new version number.
Something here is still very wrong with the way updates are handled.
We never had something like this before and it makes it very hard to
keep track of updates. It would be a lot better to have a new advisory
id and to mention that this one obsoletes the old advisory.

Another thing is that we still don't have ONE common format for the
advisories. Every rpm packager does the announcement a little
different and some don't even announce their new packages. Something
has to be done about this. Also for RHEL the update announcements are
GPG signed by a central key. This should also happen for FC's update
Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2005-03-09 13:12:25 EST
Your second point is:

a) already in bugzilla somewhere
b) waiting on infrastructure to handle these things.


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