Edward Lopez-Acosta <elopezaco...@gmail.com> wrote: > What is the logic in not updating this for -stable too?
There are no magic fairies building -stable packages on a constant basis. > Because they constantly update for security issues and this is not convenient? Yes. Also it isn't just a matter of building using robots. Fairies would need to keep a close eye on things, because it is a complicated ecosystem. As a result, it would detract from their time working on newer issues. There are 3 kinds of projects out there: - ones that maintain -stable variations using lots of $$$ they get from support contracts - ones that maintain -stable variations using teams, but then they don't do so much future-facing work (security or not) in other areas - the OpenBSD approach of doing substantial security work in the base system, adapting largely unready software to the new tougher rules, and making a release every 6 months which is still pretty bleeding edge > Security is not always convenient. Security isn't achieved by simply being a robot building the latest software. There are factors you cannot simply wave away with a wand. > Or am I somehow confused by the goals of the OpenBSD project? Probably. Isn't everyone?
