Re: Patched sendmail? testing?
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:05:37PM -0500, stan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:18:27PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>
> > 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".
>
> Moving target or not, I think 200+ day uptimes ina 24x7 production
> environment say something about teh :stability" of the testing release.
Stability isn't just a matter of uptime.
> Therfore it appears to me to be the best choice for a production machine,
The "testing" release is not, TMK, intended for use in any production
environment. To do so, is do it at your own risk. This is clearly
stated in several places.
> assumng that you need anything like current software packages (such as perl
> modules).
I can't say that I'd move a system to the "testing" release just for
updated perl packages.
> Therefore it _should_ be scure!
No, if you want provided security updates, run stable.
--
Jamin W. Collins
Reply to: