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

Re: cgiirc Hijacking

On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 08:07:28AM +0200, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote:
> Joe Smith <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > As I understand it, there is no good reason to have s.d.o in
> > my sources list, as the packages in there are for sarge, and may not be
> > compatible with the current sid ABI.
> This is nonsense. If this should really be the way you understand it,
> please ask yourself why a package's version on s.d.o which overrides a
> version in unstable (i.e. the version on s.d.o is bigger than the
> version in unstable) should ever have a less compatible ABI than the
> (smaller) version in unstable.

You should not mix suites (releases) in your sources.list generally,
espcially not stable with testing/unstable. Security.d.o for stable
might have packages that are no longer present in testing/unstable,
which would make it undesirable to install the security.d.o versions,
also, if there's something really worthwhile in security.d.o for stable,
that should also be made available in appropriate form for
testing/unstable. It's the job of the maintainer(s) to oversee this, and
ensure that it happens.

There is no reason a user should (need to) add stable security for
his/her unstable machine.

Elsewhere in this thread there's already discussion about the technical
details why it didn't happen yet in this case and how it should happen,
I'm not repeating that discussion here.


Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)

Reply to: