On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 02:08, William Hooper wrote: > Bart Martens said: > >> Also, compairing one release to another doesn't make sense. RHL 9 has > >> had > >> kernel updates that FC 1 didn't need because it was already patched. > > > > Are you denying the problem? Are you saying that fc1 is kept up to date > > just as fast as rh9? > > I'm saying that your "Well, RH9 had an update, why doesn't FC" isn't > valid. Without looking at the actual security announcements and comparing > them to the src.rpms that FC includes I'm not going to make the conclusion > that FC needs an update, just because RH9 does. I agree with you on that. But I have the impression that some people have compared the security announcements to the src.rpms, and have made the conclusion that there is something wrong with the speed of the security updates for fc1.
