On 01/09/2015 at 03:57 PM, Sven Hartge wrote: > Kynn Jones <kynnjo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> >> wrote: >> >>> Kynn Jones <kynnjo@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Your priorities for the different versions seem off. Security >>> should have to same priority as stable, not a higher one. >>> >>> And security should not need a higher priority, because security >>> updates (not already included via point-release) will always have >>> a higher version than the non-security package from the normal >>> repository. > >> OK, I thought I understood what was going on, but it turns out >> that I'm more baffled than ever. (E.g. I don't understand why I'm >> given the *option* of setting a priority for security when in fact, >> if I understand you correctly, there's only one sensible setting >> for it, namely "identical to stable"...) > > The option exists because there might be a use case for someone > somewhere. Just because an option is useless for you does not mean it > is useless for everybody. (See also "root should be able to shoot itself in the foot".) Also because the stable security updates repository is, in terms of technical implementation, exactly like any other package repository. In particular, it uses the same infrastructure - including tools which have support for repository priorities built in, and have no way of knowing that this particular repository is in any way special. It's possible (and often desirable) to set a separate priority for an ordinary package repository, and because the security-updates repository uses the same infrastructure, it's necessarily possible (although rarely desirable) to set one for the security-updates repository as well. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature