Re: Unstable/Testing bugfix issues (was Re: RedHat vs Debian?)
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:23:50AM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 07:16:24PM +0200, Viktor Rosenfeld
> (rosenfel@informatik.hu-berlin.de) wrote:
> > I've found unstable to be of better use than testing. The reason is
> > that even bugfixes need at least 10 days to go into testing, whereas in
> > unstable they could be included the next day.
>
> ...but not security updates, IIRC. These should be available
> immediately.
This is, unfortunately, not necessarily true. The testing bot will *try*
to drop in security updates rather quickly (in two days if the upload is
urgency "high", immediately if it's "critical"). However, if that
package hasn't been built for all architectures, or if its dependencies
aren't satisfied in testing, then it won't be upgraded in testing.
Testing's goal is releaseability. Security is a subset of this, and an
important one, but it currently isn't handled as well as it might be.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: