Re: to reiterate, why are there no security updates on the front page? (Or, 17 security holes the security team hasn't told you about)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: to reiterate, why are there no security updates on the front page? (Or, 17 security holes the security team hasn't told you about)
- From: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:38:41 +1000
- Message-id: <20000601143841.A10866@infotrope.net>
- In-reply-to: <20000530013121.C2811@cibalia.gkvk.hr>; from Josip Rodin on Tue, May 30, 2000 at 01:31:21AM +0200
- References: <20000528225633.L6106@kitenet.net> <20000529003101.C17839@kitenet.net> <20000529182053.C32110@azure.humbug.org.au> <20000529185104.A30669@jroger.in-berlin.de> <20000530013121.C2811@cibalia.gkvk.hr>
On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 01:31:21AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> You can put stuff after the actual low|medium|high mark, like:
> foo (1.0-1) unstable; urgency=low (ULTRA HIGH for those who are obsessed with foo)
Just sort of going out on a tangent here... one of the hats I wear is as
an editor at freshmeat.net, and the urgencies we use for new versions
are defined as "how urgent is it that a regular user of this package
should upgrade?". That is to say, urgencies are measured only in
relation to the package itself, with no reference to other packages.
Hence a "low" change to an MTA might be more important than a "high"
change to a game, looking at it in broad terms, but at least the readers
don't have to make those comparisons. They just know that "Oh, I play
this game, and it's been totally rewritten and improved heaps, I guess I
should grab the new version".
What is the actual definition of the urgency fields for Debian?
Kirrily Robert -- <firstname.lastname@example.org> -- http://netizen.com.au/
Internet and Open Source Development, Consulting and Training
Level 13, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000
Phone: +61 3 9614 0949 Fax +61 3 9614 0948