Unhelpful update descriptions

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 22:49 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> So did I, and I think his proposal is an awful idea. (Unfortunately, 
> question time at DevConf is always very short, so I didn't get to voice my 
> disapproval in the talk.) We are not Window$ (think "patch Tuesday") nor 
> RHEL. We're a distribution with "First" as one of its main objectives. Our 
> users do not want to wait up to a month for updates! I also don't think such 
> huge batches can realistically be tested.
> 
>         Kevin Kofler
> 
Well this is a really easy one to solve; "update bundling" probably
isn't necessary. Already PackageKit has a setting to control how often
it checks for updates: hourly, daily (default), or weekly. Just add a
monthly option, and change the default to something more sane than daily
(weekly sounds like a better default than daily or monthly?); people who
want faster updates can still get them (not the case if you start
holding updates). That should be really simple.

Alternatively, add a new setting for security updates so that those come
daily by default while other updates are weekly (or monthly or annually
or whatever) by default; not sure how much work that would be, but
PackageKit already distinguishes between security and nonsecurity
updates.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130314/5c958a83/attachment.sig>