On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:53:16AM -0500, stan wrote:
> > > Well, then shouldn't it allow "stable" to be released often enough that it
> > > acn be used in production> For instance how old are the prel modules, and
> > > devlopment environment in it? Ancinet by modern standards.
For example? What
* stan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030305 03:54 PST]:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:44:41PM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> > * stan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030304 13:11 PST]:
> > > My point is that the testing release ahs proven to be stable in a
> > > production environemnt (for me at least), and has, for
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:58:37AM -0500, stan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:04:49PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:11:02PM -0500, stan wrote:
> > > Well, then shouldn't it allow "stable" to be released often enough that it
> > > acn be used in production> For ins
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 06:50:40AM -0500, stan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:44:41PM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> > * stan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030304 13:11 PST]:
> > > My point is that the testing release ahs proven to be stable in a
> > > production environemnt (for me at least), and has,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:05:05PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > the new safe signals implementation has caused some problems which mean
> > that the next upstream release will allow them to be turned off.
>
> Argh.
> Do you know if that is a compile-time switch or a run-time
Colin Watson wrote:
> the new safe signals implementation has caused some problems which mean
> that the next upstream release will allow them to be turned off.
Argh.
Do you know if that is a compile-time switch or a run-time switch? I've
had some very fun debugging sessions based on perl's signa
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:53:16AM -0500, stan wrote:
> Is it possible that some mechanisim could be set up such that a package
> which has recieved a security related update in stable, could become the
> latest package for testing?
>
> I'm trying to think of a way to leverage the fact the securit
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 06:44:07AM -0500, stan wrote:
> I agree thta it is not -the only_ measuer of stability. However in this
> case, the stated uptime includes all apps (including X). So I think it's
> still a valid indication of the stability of the entire release (as used in
> this particular
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:58:37AM -0500, stan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:04:49PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> > Desktops are mostly RedHat
> > 6 or so, with some potato, a very little woody, or X terminals
> > connected to a potato server. I have yet to receive a single
> > complaint f
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:17:50PM -0500, Travis Crump wrote:
> stan wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:15:02AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> >> Someone else running testing in a production environment.
> >>
> >
> >
> >And my choices are?
> >
> >As I see them.
> >
> >2. Run stable and have 1970's v
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:04:49PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:11:02PM -0500, stan wrote:
> > Well, then shouldn't it allow "stable" to be released often enough that it
> > acn be used in production> For instance how old are the prel modules, and
> > devlopment environ
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:08:21PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:53:18PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:11:02PM -0500, stan wrote:
> > > Well, then shouldn't it allow "stable" to be released often enough that it
> > > acn be used in production> F
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:53:18PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:11:02PM -0500, stan wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:30:05PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:04:48PM -0500, stan wrote:
> > > > Not idael at all. As a matter of fact, it makes
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:44:41PM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> * stan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030304 13:11 PST]:
> > My point is that the testing release ahs proven to be stable in a
> > production environemnt (for me at least), and has, for example, much more
> > current perl modules, than stable.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 03:31:57PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:05:37PM -0500, stan wrote:
> > Moving target or not, I think 200+ day uptimes ina 24x7 production
> > environment say something about teh :stability" of the testing release.
> > Therfore it appears to me to be
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:11:29AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:20:16PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:47:33PM -0500, Hall Stevenson wrote:
> > > * Jamin W. Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030304 18:30]:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:05:37
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 03:11, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:20:16PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:47:33PM -0500, Hall Stevenson wrote:
> > > * Jamin W. Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030304 18:30]:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:05:37PM -0500, sta
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:20:16PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:47:33PM -0500, Hall Stevenson wrote:
> > * Jamin W. Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030304 18:30]:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:05:37PM -0500, stan wrote:
> > > > Moving target or not, I think 200+ day u
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:47:33PM -0500, Hall Stevenson wrote:
> * Jamin W. Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030304 18:30]:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:05:37PM -0500, stan wrote:
> >
> > > Moving target or not, I think 200+ day uptimes ina 24x7 production
> > > environment say something about teh
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:11:02PM -0500, stan wrote:
> Well, then shouldn't it allow "stable" to be released often enough that it
> acn be used in production> For instance how old are the prel modules, and
> devlopment environment in it? Ancinet by modern standards.
Heh... I never can quite figu
* Jamin W. Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030304 18:30]:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:05:37PM -0500, stan wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:18:27PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> >
> > > Testing is almost always a moving target. Stable on the other hand is
> > > not. Ideally, at some point s
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:53:18PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:11:02PM -0500, stan wrote:
> > Well, then shouldn't it allow "stable" to be released often enough that it
> > acn be used in production> For instance how old are the prel modules, and
> > devlopment environme
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:05:37PM -0500, stan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:18:27PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>
> > Testing is almost always a moving target. Stable on the other hand is
> > not. Ideally, at some point security support for testing would be a
> > good thing to have. H
* stan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030304 13:11 PST]:
> My point is that the testing release ahs proven to be stable in a
> production environemnt (for me at least), and has, for example, much more
> current perl modules, than stable. This is required for our software to
> work.
Okay, so even if you've
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:05:37PM -0500, stan wrote:
> Moving target or not, I think 200+ day uptimes ina 24x7 production
> environment say something about teh :stability" of the testing release.
> Therfore it appears to me to be the best choice for a production machine,
> assumng that you need an
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:32:34AM -0500, stan wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:15:02AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:37:02AM -0500, stan wrote:
> > > > I did apt-get update and apt-get dist-upgrade on some of my
> > > >
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:11:02PM -0500, stan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:30:05PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:04:48PM -0500, stan wrote:
> > > Not idael at all. As a matter of fact, it makes the whole concept of a
> > > testing release pretty useless.
> >
> >
stan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:15:02AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
Someone else running testing in a production environment.
And my choices are?
As I see them.
2. Run stable and have 1970's versions of software/
woody has the exact same versions[except with security updates] of
softw
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:30:05PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:04:48PM -0500, stan wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:02:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > That's a hopeless exaggeration; I run stable happily on my home server.
> > > Anyway, if you run testing you
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:25:38PM -0500, Hall Stevenson wrote:
> At 02:04 PM 3/4/2003 -0500, stan wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:02:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:32:34AM -0500, stan wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:15:02AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:18:27PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:04:48PM -0500, stan wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:02:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> >
> > > That's a hopeless exaggeration; I run stable happily on my home server.
> > > Anyway, if you run tes
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, stan wrote:
> [snip]
> 13:58:15 up 249 days, 5:48, 1 user, load average: 0.35, 0.32, 0.36
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# cat /etc/debian_version
> testing/unstable
> [snip]
> That's certainly "stab;e"enough for em. And it gets apt-get dist-upgraded
> pretty much every weekday mor
* stan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030304 11:06 PST]:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:02:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:32:34AM -0500, stan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:15:02AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > > > Someone else running testing in a production environ
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:04:48PM -0500, stan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:02:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > That's a hopeless exaggeration; I run stable happily on my home server.
> > Anyway, if you run testing you need to manage the security yourself by
> > backporting patches. I don
At 02:04 PM 3/4/2003 -0500, stan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:02:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:32:34AM -0500, stan wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:15:02AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:37:02AM -0500, stan wrote:
> > > > I did ap
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:04:48PM -0500, stan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:02:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> > That's a hopeless exaggeration; I run stable happily on my home server.
> > Anyway, if you run testing you need to manage the security yourself by
> > backporting patches. I
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:02:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:32:34AM -0500, stan wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:15:02AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:37:02AM -0500, stan wrote:
> > > > I did apt-get update and apt-get dist-upgrade on
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:32:34AM -0500, stan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:15:02AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:37:02AM -0500, stan wrote:
> > > I did apt-get update and apt-get dist-upgrade on some of my
> > > machines running testing, and I was surprised to not
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:15:02AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:37:02AM -0500, stan wrote:
> > I did apt-get update and apt-get dist-upgrade on some of my machines running
> > testing, and I was surprised to not [pull patched sendmail binaries, based
> > upon the announcem
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:37:02AM -0500, stan wrote:
> I did apt-get update and apt-get dist-upgrade on some of my machines running
> testing, and I was surprised to not [pull patched sendmail binaries, based
> upon the announcement of a vulnerability in it yesterday.
Testing doesn't have securit
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:37:02AM -0500, stan wrote:
> I did apt-get update and apt-get dist-upgrade on some of my machines running
> testing, and I was surprised to not [pull patched sendmail binaries, based
> upon the announcement of a vulnerability in it yesterday.
>
> What's the story?
http:
41 matches
Mail list logo
