2008/8/27 Chris Bannister <mockingbird@earthlight.co.nz
<mailto: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. <http://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.
Maybe I was wrong to think that the priority is that the computer on
which the OS is installed is stable (reliable), and not that the OS
itself is stable (unchanging).
Furthermore, even on the latter interpretation of the significance of
calling the release "stable", isn't it the case that Etch still
includes security fixes? Well, if in order to run rkhunter - a program
which can be important to maintaining a system's security - a download
is needed that is no longer available and isn't included in the
"stable" package, shouldn't that be fixed? I think it should, which is
why I wrote the email that generated this thread.