> Alternately, we could be far more aggressive about removing packages from > oldstable, I suppose, but I don't think that's a good idea; that just > leaves our users with exactly the sorts of choices that we're trying to > avoid. I think it's much cleaner and better for our users to offer full > security support and then retire the whole distribution at the same time. > It makes planning considerably easier, among other things.
I don't really understand it myself as server packages and their dependencies tend to be stable and I tend to want the latest versions of dovecot, unbound etc.. However perhaps there is a divide here between servers which want longer support for few packages and desktops which want stable but secure yet as featureful as is sensible desktops. -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52116.2947...@smtp149.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
