On Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 11:35:51 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
> Hey, you can't auto-give you a point for something that I have not
> discussed ;-)
You were being tardy in getting round to it so it needed something to
prod you into action. :)
> Regards to the 4th point that says "a package needs to be current to be
> useful" it fully fits with Iceweasel but I wouldn't say so for clamav.
It is clear we have diametrically opposite views, so best leave it
there.
> Well, let me think...
>
> clamav was in volatile repo
> volatile repo provided their own security fixes
> volatile repo has been replaced by squeeze-updates
>
> I love the logic behind the things :-)
Three correct statements but an unjustified conclusion. My statement
that squeeze-updates does not deal with security was informed by
This suite will contain updates that satisfy one of the
following criteria:
* The update is urgent and not of a security nature.
Security updates will continue to be pushed through
the security archive.
> Clamav was on volatile repo and it received (receives) updates for
> security fixes, don't know if that respond your concerns. I hope squeeze-
> updates still follows that tradition (I know it does) :-)
Please see previously.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110926133331.GG6253@desktop
