Re: security in testing
On Wednesday 14 May 2003 04:53 pm, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> What's worse, saying testing is not for public use means there is _no_
> place to get updates, since unstable is obviously not an option for end
> users. This makes Debian the only linux distribution I know of that
> completely eschews software updates between frozen releases (except for
> security fixes).
Hmm. Funny how myself and every admin I know have only very minor issues with
running unstable. What, pray tell, makes it such an 'obvious' non-option for
end users? Well-timed unstable snapshots are often more 'stable' than
commercial Linux releases, in my limited experience.
Sure, every now and then a badly-broken package makes it in for a day or two.
This seems to be far less harmful than the massive headache that treating
'testing' as a usable release seems to be causing.
> The amount of backporting and apt-pinning going on suggests not all Debian
> end users are content with yearly updates. A testing-like "middle ground"
> release for end users definitely has a place in the Debian universe.
I do like the sound of this, but saying it has a place and actually making it
happen are very different things. There seems to be a lot of the former, and
little of the latter - perhaps because unstable actually works just fine for
the majority of people actually working on it?
Just a guess, from my limited perspective.
- Keegan
Reply to: