Re: Food for thought - SECURITY (design flaw?)

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Food for thought - SECURITY (design flaw?)
From: Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Date: 12 Feb 2001 09:48:33 +1100
Message-id: <[🔎] 84elx44z0e.fsf@snoopy.apana.org.au>
In-reply-to: carlos@fisica.ufpr.br's message of "11 Feb 01 18:13:41 GMT"
References: <[🔎] 20010211030436.A3627@overdue.dhis.net> <[🔎] 87lmrd8reb.fsf@prometeo.aglorioso.com> <[🔎] 14982.54869.849422.199578@hoggar.fisica.ufpr.br>

>>>>> "Carlos" == Carlos Carvalho <carlos@fisica.ufpr.br> writes:

    Carlos> Another IMPORTANT question, how can it be that packages have newer
    Carlos> versions in testing than unstable, eg. man-db????

Not from what I see:

bam@auric:~$ madison man-db
    man-db |   2.3.16-1 |        stable | alpha, arm, i386, m68k, powerpc, sparc
    man-db |   2.3.16-1 |       testing | alpha, arm, i386, m68k, powerpc, sparc
    man-db | 2.3.16-1.1 | proposed-updates | alpha, arm, i386, m68k, powerpc, sparc
    man-db |   2.3.17-1 |      unstable | hurd-i386, m68k, powerpc
    man-db |   2.3.17-3 |      unstable | alpha, arm, i386, mips, sparc

what is wrong here?
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>

Reply to:

References:
- Food for thought - SECURITY (design flaw?)
  - From: Lazarus Long <lazarus@overdue.dhis.net>
- Re: Food for thought - SECURITY (design flaw?)
  - From: Andrea Glorioso <sama@aglorioso.com>
- Re: Food for thought - SECURITY (design flaw?)
  - From: Carlos Carvalho <carlos@fisica.ufpr.br>

Prev by Date: Re: /etc/init.d/modclean
Next by Date: Re: Changes to experimental, proposed-updates and orphaned distributions
Previous by thread: Re: Food for thought - SECURITY (design flaw?)
Next by thread: Re: Food for thought - SECURITY (design flaw?)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread