Re: Patched sendmail? testing?
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:04:48PM -0500, stan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:02:10PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> > That's a hopeless exaggeration; I run stable happily on my home server.
> > Anyway, if you run testing you need to manage the security yourself by
> > backporting patches. I don't believe anyone will ever have told you
> > otherwise.
> >
> > (It's not an ideal situation, true. However, it's reality.)
>
> Not idael at all. As a matter of fact, it makes the whole concept of a
> testing release pretty useless.
How does a lack of security update support make the "testing" release
useless? IIRC, the purpose of the testing release was to ensure that
pacakges interoperated properly help prepare for the next stable
release. In other words it's for testing. That seems pretty clear to
me that it's not intended for production use.
Per the Debian releases page:
The ``testing'' distribution contains packages that haven't been
accepted into a ``stable'' release yet, but they are in the queue for
that. The main advantage of using this distribution is that it has more
recent versions of software, and the main disadvantage is that it's not
completely tested and has no official support from Debian security team.
> So, we have a pretty "stable" release good enough "IMHO" for "real
> production" work. But we choose to cripple it by not providing security
> updtaes?
You make it sound like it was "taken" away. TMK, it's never been there.
> Sounds like bad allocation of resources to me!
Testing is almost always a moving target. Stable on the other hand is
not. Ideally, at some point security support for testing would be a
good thing to have. However, I'd hardly call the lack of security
support for it to be "bad allocation of resources".
--
Jamin W. Collins
Reply to: