Re: security in testing
On Fri, 16 May 2003 10:40:10 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:06:47AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:19:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:59:49PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> >> Do you honestly think would be a good idea to use
>> >> testing-security this way on a continual basis?
>> > Yes, I do. I think we should release DSA's for security problems
>> > in testing, too.
>> There's that "we" again. Why not unstable, too?
> I'd have no problem with that.
Who exactly is this "we" we are talking about? Unfortunately,
I am swamped, and don't run testing anyway, so I can't help. Who is
it that we are going to find to do the work?
manoj
--
Wombat's Laws of Computer Selection: If it doesn't run Unix, forget
it. Any computer design over 10 years old is obsolete. Anything made
by IBM is junk. (See number 2) The minimum acceptable CPU power for a
single user is a VAX/780 with a floating point accelerator. Any
computer with a mouse is worthless. Rich Kulawiec
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: