Hello.
rich:
> What I don't understand is why it is so horrendously insecure to run
> testing - as I understand it when a vulnerability is found, a new
> version of the program is normally released which fixes the problem.
AFAIK, the catch is that the Debian Security Team is maintaining stable
-
On Tuesday 04 January 2005 23:30, Kent West wrote:
> My personal opinion? Skip Testing and go straight to Sid. You have
> more chance of breakage (although it's been very rare in my experience
> (about 3 years now)), but said breakage also tends to get fixed within
> hours instead of 10 days. Same
: J.F.Gratton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 05 January 2005 02:59
> To: Peter Nuttall
> Cc: Debian-User
> Subject: Re: Clarification concerning security of testing on a laptop
>
>
>
> I just gave the first example that came to my mind, there are others,
> I'm su
I just gave the first example that came to my mind, there are others,
I'm sure. I know that from time to time it did frustrate me to see
software I knew to be released, but not being available yet with apt.
Concerning the specifics as to why Gnome 2.8 was or was not there fast
enough... Do not
On Wednesday 05 Jan 2005 00:32, J.F.Gratton wrote:
>
> One thing I still don't like about Debian is the time it takes to get
> new versions of major packages, even on "unstable" or "testing" (think:
> Gnome 2.8). The other side of that coin is that the package maintainers
> DO keep their eyes on t
> On Tuesday 04 January 2005 06:26 pm, Kent West wrote:
>
> > My personal opinion? Skip Testing and go straight to Sid.
__deletia__
> > You also get newer toys to play with.
>
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 07:26:31PM -0500, Brian Pack wrote:
> I like toys. :)
>
__deletia__
//
...same here. i
On Tuesday 04 January 2005 07:32 pm, J.F.Gratton wrote:
> My 2 cents on this: I've been using unstable branches/testing for the
> last couple of years now, and only once did I see broken packages that
> stuck me there badly (you know, some combination of libc+perl+dpkg, or
> something that lethal).
My 2 cents on this: I've been using unstable branches/testing for the
last couple of years now, and only once did I see broken packages that
stuck me there badly (you know, some combination of libc+perl+dpkg, or
something that lethal). Even then, with some fancy pussyfooting I
managed to repair eve
On Tuesday 04 January 2005 06:26 pm, Kent West wrote:
> My personal opinion? Skip Testing and go straight to Sid. You have more
> chance of breakage (although it's been very rare in my experience (about
> 3 years now)), but said breakage also tends to get fixed within hours
> instead of 10 days. S
Kent West wrote:
My personal opinion? Skip Testing and go straight to Sid. You have more
chance of breakage (although it's been very rare in my experience (about
3 years now)), but said breakage also tends to get fixed within hours
instead of 10 days. Same for vulnerabilities.
Or a nice alte
rich wrote:
First up, I'm running testing on my laptop & want some clarification
regarding how secure this is. I know it is not monitored in any way for
security problems & as such security problems are not fixed on it -
however stable is no good to me since my laptop won't boot any 2.4
kernels, a
Hi,
I know these type of questions are asked a lot but there's a couple of
things I don't get & I haven't been able to find an answer using google
or searching the message archives.
First up, I'm running testing on my laptop & want some clarification
regarding how secure this is. I know it is no
12 matches
Mail list logo
