Let's see if there's even a MODICUM of common sense in this scheme. First, 
everyone and their dog has said that it'd be nice if "make update" doesn't 
delete the package BEFORE trying to build the new one. Whatever - nobody's 
gotten around to fixing that.

However, why does "make update" delete a package BEFORE reporting the 
relevant package as insecure?

This isn't user friendly. It isn't even admin friendly!

John Klos