[lug] Too long to fix bugs?

[The Matt]

On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 15:39, Ryan Wheaton wrote:
> But hasn't Fedora only been out for 5 days?  Or were you being 
> sarcastic?  :-)

No, I'm not.  I'm kinda frustrated because the main Fedora folks never
seem to respond to any questions about the security update process. 
I've searched through fedora-list, fedora-devel-list, fedora-test-list,
et al for an explanation.

In fact, after a few other people started wondering out loud about it on
fedora-list, Bill Nottingham finally replied:

> Marc Deslauriers (marcdeslauriers videotron ca) said: 
> > How come there wasn't an ethereal security update for Fedora today?
> 
> With the switch to Fedora, we have to rejigger some of the
> infrastructure in pushing updates. This has hit a few delay
> snags, we hope to get things straightened out soon.
> 
> Bill

In a way, I was just looking for an answer like this.  The problem was I
asked the questions during the test phase when the CUPS & coreutils
holes were found (and got the "your problem, deal with it" answer) and
after FC1's release (and got absolutely no response).  Heck, even
someone saying "I've built some prelim packages and placed them in the
test directory in the fedora tree" would have been fine.  But no one
responded with that.

Frankly, it was just this absolute silence that got to me.  Just give me
a "we're looking into it and will have patches out soon" and I'll
probably be placated.  It's the fact that I (and many others) can't find
a discussion or specific FAQ about the security process on Fedora that
annoys me.

-- 
I am a theoretical chemist.  Fear me!
 Matt Thompson -- http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~thompsma/
 440 UCB, Boulder, CO  80309-0440
 JILA A510, 303-492-4662
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/pipermail/lug/attachments/20031112/1f3d3da2/attachment.pgp>