on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 08:28:55AM -0500, Colin Watson (cjwatson@debian.org) wrote: > 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. Thanks, Colin. This was the response I was hoping to elicit with my post above. I guess I'd be interested in seeing what might be done to make stable more responsive to both security updates and bugfixes of a sufficient severity. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
Attachment:
pgpqMg_qISRkT.pgp
Description: PGP signature