Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Hmm, then maybe this is a bug in PackageKit. In the Software Update GUI,
> it's listed as "normal update".
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574658
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:08:20 -0400
Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 07:59 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Hmm, then maybe this is a bug in PackageKit. In the Software Update
> > GUI, it's listed as "normal update".
>
> I've seen that a lot over the past few months. Unfortunatel
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 07:59 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Hmm, then maybe this is a bug in PackageKit. In the Software Update GUI,
> it's listed as "normal update".
I've seen that a lot over the past few months. Unfortunately, I haven't
investigated to the point of being able to write a usef
On 06/15/2010 07:54 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 07:28:40AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> Can someone explain to me why a package whose update comment lists
>> "added patch that fixes insufficient environment sanitization issue
>> (CVE-2010-1646)" is not marked as a security
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 07:28:40AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Can someone explain to me why a package whose update comment lists
> "added patch that fixes insufficient environment sanitization issue
> (CVE-2010-1646)" is not marked as a security bug?
No, because according to the Bodhi web
