On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 04:01:40AM +0100, Sam Kuper wrote: > 2008/8/27 Chris Bannister <mockingbird@earthlight.co.nz>: > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 03:30:37AM +0100, Sam Kuper wrote: > >> (4) Request the Debian Etch rkhunter maintainers to upgrade rkhunter > >> in Etch to version 1.3.2. If successful, this would undoubtedly be the > >> best solution. Dear Micah and Julien, how about it? Sysadmins will > >> love you even more than they do already! :) > > > > Not a chance. Why do you think its called "stable"? > > Perhaps naively, I thought it was called "stable" because it was for systems > that had to be stable, stable in this case meaning reliable. To me, this > suggests that stable releases should not have the latest toys packaged (most > people don't need a Mozilla Ubiquity beta on their production servers), nor > even necessarily the latest utilities, in order to minimise potential > conflicts between packages. What it should have, however, are up-to-date > security packages. A rooted server is not a stable one: it could be brought > down, outside of its sysadmin's control, at any minute. I'm not familiar with rkhunter, but wouldn't this kind of situation make it a candidate for volatile? Cheers, Tom -- "Out of register space (ugh)" -- vi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature