On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Jon Peatfield wrote: > > sl-fastbugs - disabled by default - These are bugfixes that are put out by > > the upstream vendor, before the official updates. At the time of this > > writting, this is a new program, that the vendor calls 'fasttrack'. It is not > > enabled by default, because sometimes bugfixes change the way a program > > works, and the releases of S.L. are designed to be very stable. > > > > sl-bugfix-44 - disabled by default - These are the non-errata, updated > > packages from the next release. In this case, sl-bugfix-44, is in S.L. 4.3, > > and it points to all the bugfixes that happened in S.L. 4.4. Since S.L. 4.4 > > currently isn't out yet, this repository is empty. When S.L. 4.4 is released, > > this repository will be populated, and S.L. 4.4 configuration will have > > sl-bugfix-45. > > I find the term non-errata slightly confusing since the vendor refers to > all 3 kinds (security/bugfix/enhancements) as errata... > > What about (non-security) errata that the Vendor *has* released (after a > given release). atm there arn't many examples of those at the moment, > though ypserv *is* one e.g.: > > https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2006-0263.html > > mentions ypserv-2.13-11 which isn't anywhere obvious other than > 43/<arch>/errata/fastbugs/... at the moment (ypserv-2.13-9 is in > 42/<arch>/SL/RPMS/ of course since that was current at the 43 release). > > [ Aside: While looking at this I noticed that lmbench and rh2r (which had > bugfix releases last month) arn't anywhere in sl43 at all. Is this > because there is no source or are they excluded for some other reason? ] We only release binarys based on released SRPMS from the upstream vendor. I will check on these. > > I'd always assumed that SL only (normally) included the security related > errata (plus any dependencies etc), but now with bugfix/fastbugs etc > things aren't so clear. Has this changed? No. This is true for the security errata that show up in errata/SL/RPMS . This is why we made a completely different area for these new "Fastrack -- fastbugs" rpms. We wanted to keep them in a different place but available for those that need them. > Do non-security errata now get into the main errata/SL/RPMS/ space? Should not. There have been a few exceptions because of Upstream Vendor issues such as new dependencies for a rpm. I wish the upstream vendor did not do that. > > Or am I just missing something about how the term errata is defined/used? The Upstream vendor uses the term errata for security/bugfix/enhancements , we used it for security errata as that was all that we really had available before (at least between releases) but not we have these Fastrack rpms and needed a place to put them, so into the errata tree they went but in their own directory. > > -- Jon > -Connie Sieh