Look Greg,in the original post, I referred the security patch introduced breakage jut to point out the existence of such risk, in order to make weighting the risks more realistic. Just like this: "There is some degree of risk of breaking functionality connected to upgrading to recent upstream version. There is also some degree of risk connected to backpatching the old version, that is increasing with the age of software. Both are real, both can cause severe damage. The probability of each one, _that_ is the matter of question."
That should be changed anyway, since security upgrades occasionally break things too.You keep saying this,
That's just because people keep asking for proof and questioning the bare existence of the risk of security patch introduced breakage.
I haven't seen this in Sarge at all. Sarge has had
HOW MANY security updates that broke things? Etch's security updates including the Kernel upgrade had no noticeable problems... but of course the two *OBSCURE* issues reported affect you, right?
Should there be more appropriate word that "ocassionally", please suggest one. My english is not perfect.
Of course I listed only those issues that affected me. If You want more, go, ask someone else.
You keep trying to HIT these things home, but the more you do this, the more you look foolish. These problems are mainly Woody and before, except for the LONG release time for Sarge. The Woody security updates for Mozilla was REALLY HARD.
I stated before, bugs are inevitable, either in tested "stable" software, or upstream stable, or in security upgrades. There is no intention to harm anybody. Just name the facts.
I'd say that Mozilla's backpatching was insanity from the start, the software was developing rapidly during the Woody's life.
Peter