On Thursday, 31.03.2005 at 05:58 -0500, Michael Katz wrote: > It is easy to find the answer, it is well known, but the answer that > debian gives is not really acceptable given all of the emperical data > about the security of updated glibc implementations . The stubborn > position of Debian is really undefensible, even with an faq. If i > don't make my opinion known then they will continue to be subborn, at > least now they can be stubborn and know that there decision has impact > on real people trying to support their software. (Please stop top-posting) For what it's worth, I don't believe that 'stubborn' is the correct word. There are reasons for having separate Debian arms, Stable v. Others and keeping them separate is based on good reason, not stubbornness. Sticking to a well-thought-out policy is not necessarily stubbornness when there are many good reasons for doing so. You can have (i) new and possibly buggy, or (ii) older and rock solid stable, or (iii) a bit of both somewhere in between. Actually, you could think of this as the different arms of Debian as being different distributions, as different as Slackware or Red Hat. If your argument is actually just that the glibc in Woody has security issues, then that's actually *not* the usual Woody Is Old objection: Woody is considered to be secure and has security updates applied as a matter of priority. Dave. -- Please don't CC me on list messages! ... Dave Ewart - davee@sungate.co.uk - jabber: davee@jabber.org All email from me is now digitally signed, key from http://www.sungate.co.uk/ Fingerprint: AEC5 9360 0A35 7F66 66E9 82E4 9E10 6769 CD28 DA92
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature