On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 06:51:40PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > Updating a package always has the chance of breaking something. Some > > security updates have broken someone's machines. Is that a reason for > > stopping to make security updates? No, of course not. There is > > always a compromise between possibly breaking something and the gain > > users will get. When a virus scanner is completely out of date, the > > gain of putting in a new and updated version is surely bigger than the > > possible breakage it may cause. > > You forgot that we usually can roll out a security update at any time. > > But we cannot roll out a stable update at any time. Guess why there > haven't been a stable update for month_s_ now. It's not that I'm not > working on it... > > In other words, if it breaks, it's likely to break for half a year or > a year or something - or forever. How does a stable update differ from just installing the security updates that that stable update consists of? i.e. if the security update breaks something, it tends to get noticed rather quickly, and a new security update is made. So a stable update shouldn't consist of any broken or breakage causing security updates. Or am I missing something? regards Andrew -- linux.conf.au 2005 - http://lca2005.linux.org.au/ - Birthplace of Tux April 18th to 23rd - http://lca2005.linux.org.au/ - LINUX Canberra, Australia - http://lca2005.linux.org.au/ - Get bitten!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature