Re: Patched sendmail? testing?
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:30:05PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> 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.
>
> No it doesn't. It's designed to help developers get an idea of how close
> we are to having something releasable, and to make the release process
> itself easier. If some users find it useful, that's great - an added
> bonus. But you should still take care when using it on machines
> connected directly to the net (which, remember, is not anywhere close to
> all Debian systems).
Well, then shouldn't it allow "stable" to be released often enough that it
acn be used in production> For instance how old are the prel modules, and
devlopment environment in it? Ancinet by modern standards.
>
> > 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?
> >
> > Sounds like bad allocation of resources to me!
>
> That's nice. When "resources" (i.e. developers) come along who have the
> time and skill to start performing testing security updates, it'll be
> done: this came up on -devel fairly recently, and all the technical
> facilities to allow such updates to happen are there. Until then we can
> but admit once again that it's not ideal and shrug.
I'm curious as to why it can't be done in conhunction with the stable
security fixes?
--
"They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Reply to: