[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Updating scanners and filters in Debian stable (3.1)


* paddy (paddy@panici.net) [041008 16:05]:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 03:15:29PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * paddy (paddy@panici.net) [041008 15:10]:
> > > What are the pros and cons for volatile-{stable,release,or-whatever-you-call-it}
> > > as an all-at-once release model, rather than a rolling-when-its-ready 
> > > model more like security.d.o ?
> > 
> > well, not exactly an "all at once", but having not just a random minor
> > update to pop up every day is IMHO a great feature for system
> > administrators - they're not forced into additional update rounds.
> If volatile-stable included as a criterion time-served three months 
> (pick a number, archive wide or perhaps per source package),
> I believe it could prove a wise choice of mechanism: familiar, 
> cheap to implement, and a good proxy for some desirable qualities.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Not too many updates to mechanismns,
except if really required. And of course, the daily update of e.g.
clamavs files, should be done by a cronjob from clamavs site, and not by
installing a new deb every day.

> I don't understand 'forced into additional update rounds'.

A lot of admins (including me) use tools that tell them "Hey, you forgot
to update your packages" if they are not current. And, if the last
update fixed a security bug, this is actually needed.

>   In what use-cases is a three-month clamav good, a two-year-old clamav 
>   not, and newer not interesting?  What does it do?

Well, as I said above: If there is a good reason for an update, it
should be in. But - don't fix it if it is not broken, and who wants to
use the very newst development version could just use some backports,
e.g.  from backports.org. volatile is IMHO more a "it is more current
than stable, but otherwise, we change as less as possible".

   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Reply to: