[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Unstable/Testing bugfix issues (was Re: RedHat vs Debian?)

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

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: pgp0sXSdKnOgY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: