Re: security updates for testing distibution
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:25:54PM +0200, Christophe Courtois wrote: Anyhow, woody will be released Real Soon Now(tm), and then the security policy will be the same as it was for potato. Does it mean too that I must update from potato rather quickly after Woody's release if I want all security releases ? Is the maintenance of potato totally stopped after 1st May ? No. Or when potato was released, slink was supported by the security team a while (a few months or so). -- Note that I use Debian version 3.0 Linux emac140 2.4.17 #1 sön feb 10 20:21:22 CET 2002 i686 unknown Hans Ekbrand pgpzTwnn0mCWu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: security updates for testing distibution
Anyhow, woody will be released Real Soon Now(tm), and then the security policy will be the same as it was for potato. Does it mean too that I must update from potato rather quickly after Woody's release if I want all security releases ? Is the maintenance of potato totally stopped after 1st May ? -- Christophe Courtois - Strasbourg, France http://courtois.multimania.com - Clé PGP : 0F33E837 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: security updates for testing distibution
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:40:41AM +0200, Hanspeter Roth wrote: On Apr 04 at 18:08, John Hasler spoke: Andrew writes: Don't security updates also go to unstable? No. Security updates are almost always done by backporting the fix to the version of the package that is in stable. The version in unstable is almost always a more recent one. If it is vulnerable it will be fixed when the maintainer uploads a new version. But what about the testing distribution? Does it also get `implicit' security fixes by new versions? Or is it safer to stick with stable? -Hanspeter AFAIK, testing gets security fixes only when the package has been uploaded to unstable, then met the requirements to be moved into testing (IIRC, (two weeks|10 days) without a RC bug). I think someone also mentioned a while back that security fixes can get fast-tracked into testing within a few days, if it's a serious issue, but I'm not sure if this is standard. Anyhow, woody will be released Real Soon Now(tm), and then the security policy will be the same as it was for potato. -rob -- I did not vote for the Australian government. pgp3alQJBJtkm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: security updates for testing distibution
On Apr 04 at 18:08, John Hasler spoke: Andrew writes: Don't security updates also go to unstable? No. Security updates are almost always done by backporting the fix to the version of the package that is in stable. The version in unstable is almost always a more recent one. If it is vulnerable it will be fixed when the maintainer uploads a new version. But what about the testing distribution? Does it also get `implicit' security fixes by new versions? Or is it safer to stick with stable? -Hanspeter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: security updates for testing distibution
Can one switch back to stable without reinstalling the whole? Probably not. But you don't want to, woody will be soon! Just keep saying it, woody will be soon... woody will be soon... eventually, we'll convince ourselves that it is true ;-) Seriously --- we now have under 100 RC bugs in testing. That's probably less than we have in potato. We are closing them faster than opening them. Woody will be soon. Just change the 'testing' to 'woody' in your sources, then you will stay with woody. Which will be stable soon. But after that happens, change it back to stable [ And, btw, getting security fixes into testing is now very important, because security problems are RC bugs. I think the security people might even be helping, there was some discussion of this. ] And if I say woody will be soon enough times, I'll probably delude myself into believing it ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: security updates for testing distibution
On Apr 05 at 04:31, Anthony DeRobertis spoke: Just change the 'testing' to 'woody' in your sources, then you will stay with woody. Which will be stable soon. But after that happens, change it back to stable [ And, btw, getting security fixes into testing is now very important, because security problems are RC bugs. I think the security people might even be helping, there was some discussion of this. ] Is that to say if I have 'testing' or 'woody' in sources.list and upgrade regularly I can assume I get the relevant security fixes too? -Hanspeter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: security updates for testing distibution
begin quoting what Anthony DeRobertis said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:31:35AM -0500: Just change the 'testing' to 'woody' in your sources, then you will stay with woody. Which will be stable soon. But after that happens, change it back to stable Just to head off the next question: as root: cat /etc/apt/sources.list | sed -e s/testing/woody/g /etc/apt/sources.list.2 mv /etc/apt/sources.list /etc/apt/sources.list.back mv /etc/apt/sources.list.2 /etc/apt/sources.list There are many ways to do it. This is one of them. pgpkWrZTR78eb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: security updates for testing distibution
Hanspeter Roth writes: But what about the testing distribution? Does it also get `implicit' security fixes by new versions? Or is it safer to stick with stable? Well, it follows the usual rules, so eventually things will filter down. In the meantime, I believe you have to grab things from unstable. Andrew. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: security updates for testing distibution
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 07:28:54AM -0800, Andrew Agno wrote: Hanspeter Roth writes: But what about the testing distribution? Does it also get `implicit' security fixes by new versions? Or is it safer to stick with stable? Well, it follows the usual rules, so eventually things will filter down. In the meantime, I believe you have to grab things from unstable. Note that packages for which there have been an security fix in unstable might not be installable in testing without upgrading (a lot of) other packages to unstable, if you are unlucky. So, for convenient security, stable is the way to go. -- Note that I use Debian version 3.0 Linux emac140 2.4.17 #1 sön feb 10 20:21:22 CET 2002 i686 unknown Hans Ekbrand pgpLqeKYmYFn5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: security updates for testing distibution
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:53:52PM +0200, Hanspeter Roth wrote: Can one get security updates for the testing distribution? No. There is no such thing. -- Note that I use Debian version 3.0 Linux emac140 2.4.17 #1 sön feb 10 20:21:22 CET 2002 i686 unknown Hans Ekbrand pgp0sfSbtZ3Nj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: security updates for testing distibution
On Apr 04 at 22:57, Hans Ekbrand spoke: On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:53:52PM +0200, Hanspeter Roth wrote: Can one get security updates for the testing distribution? No. There is no such thing. Can one switch back to stable without reinstalling the whole? -Hanspeter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: security updates for testing distibution
* Hanspeter Roth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: On Apr 04 at 22:57, Hans Ekbrand spoke: On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:53:52PM +0200, Hanspeter Roth wrote: Can one get security updates for the testing distribution? No. There is no such thing. Can one switch back to stable without reinstalling the whole? See above. (While I don't know the answer, I'm sure it'll take at least 3 times longer than a complete reinstall just to work out if it can be done.) Dima -- Q276304 - Error Message: Your Password Must Be at Least 18770 Characters and Cannot Repeat Any of Your Previous 30689 Passwords -- RISKS 21.37 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: security updates for testing distibution
Andrew writes: Don't security updates also go to unstable? No. Security updates are almost always done by backporting the fix to the version of the package that is in stable. The version in unstable is almost always a more recent one. If it is vulnerable it will be fixed when the maintainer uploads a new version. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: security updates for testing distibution
John Hasler writes: Andrew writes: Don't security updates also go to unstable? No. Security updates are almost always done by backporting the fix to the version of the package that is in stable. The version in unstable is almost always a more recent one. If it is vulnerable it will be fixed when the maintainer uploads a new version. Ah, I see. Well that's almost as good, then, as fixes that are down in the stable version probably have roots in the version maintained by the upstream authors. Which means that a new version would be pending for unstable. Andrew. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
