also sprach Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> [2004.06.26.1442 +0200]: > >Oh, I've noticed. But it doesn't explain why security updates aren't > >put into stable at the same time as they become available on > >security.d.o. It would probably take a lot of load of klecker. > > Because then it wouldn't be stable, would it? I guess. However, while the Debian connotation of stable is preserved, the common one (as in: this release creates a stable system) is invalidated with every security problem. I hope this makes sense as I am failing to express it differently. After all, stable without security.d.o is a bad idea. Therefore, there will be only few exceptions of systems that don't have both in sources.list. So then I ask what the advantages are of keeping stable static at all costs? It seems to me to be somewhat purely academic. Note that I am not trying to nitpick or troll or flame. But I cannot find a rationale for this approach, so I am sceptical. I hope my questions are perceived well and yield a fruitful discussion. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org> : :' : proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature