Re: Kernel 2.4 SOS

[mdevin@ozemail.com.au]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 12:21:44PM +0200, Joris Mocka wrote:
> Ethan Benson wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Johan Segernäs wrote:
> > > And no, i wouldn't use woody on a firewall, it's to many packet-updates all
> > > the time, takes
> > > to much time to keep track of everything imho.
> > 
> > woody also does not get security updates, in fact it can take a very
> > long time for security related updates to get into woody since its
> > almost entirely managed by a script.  unstable simply gets new
> > versions of a package installed immediatly so any security fixes are
> > in unstable as soon as they are packaged.  that does NOT guarentee they
> > will make it into woody any time soon though.
> > 
> > the `testing' distribution (now woody) is the least secure branch you
> > can run.
> 
> ...this is a thing where i can't agree, in the last 6 month, all
> security-fixes were as soon implemented as in potato (i have both, so
> i'd compared). e.g. bind probs, man-db probs for mention a few. but i
> have also the security-link in my sources.list even under woody, maybe
> this is the reason why it works. 
>
What is the security link?

Mark.