Google
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: Fedora Legacy Test Update Notification: httpd and mod_ssl

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 06:26:03PM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
I've got a few questions about this release of mod_ssl.

1) why is it bundled w/ httpd v2.0 and not a separate bug?

Actually it exists a separate bug report:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168420
but it was closed with a reference to 166941 in order to track
everything together.  The subject for 166941 is indeed somewhat
confusing in the context.

Not just the subject, the contents too. There is no Apache v2.0 for RH 7.3, yet the body explicitly says that 7.3 is affected.

2) does anything in this apply to apache v1.3?

Yes but indirectly.  These are two different packages there.

3) why was it never tracked in Pekka's issues list?

If you would look at that list a bit closer you would find the
information above rather quickly.

I did check before asking, thus the nature of my questions. I haven't yet seen one bug filed for 2 packages where there are separate fixes for each package, in fact I thought that was against the rules. I do see how these two issues are related, but it appears senseless to bundle the release when only one-half of it affects RH 7.3 (for which there is no apache 2.0).

I use Pekka's issues list (Thank you Pekka) to track issues as I find bugzilla a waste of time. I do login to bugzilla for the details of issues that interest me, but I rely on seeing them in Pekka's list, or seeing them on FL emails, prior to drilling into the specific ID in bugzilla. That said, I doubt this is a problem w/ Pekka's list as he has been very exacting up until now. With this bug(s) I see the explanation above (separate bug report, etc), but I don't see any reference to 168420 and 166941 in any of the issues lists.

4) why am I the only one inquiring about this. :-)

Dunno.  Others checked before asking?

To excuse this as "Other's checked before asking" is not accurate as the data just isn't there to support even having the ability to check. Show me discussions of this bug outside of a bugID that isn't referenced anywhere else. And please don't suggest that I am to be trolling bugzilla every day for the hundreds of packages for which I may or may not be interested in knowing if a bug exists.

The bottom line is that I regularly keep on top of RH73 bugs/updates/patches and I missed this. OK, so I am human and subject to errors, but this bug stayed well below the FL radar for many months. I have a pretty good record of downloading and testing updates, so the fact that this critical one slipped by alarms me.

-Jim P.



--

fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list

[Fedora Development]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Legacy Announce]     [Fedora Config]     [PAM]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Gimp]     [Free Internet Dating]     [Yosemite Questions]

Powered by Linux