* 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 example,
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 more
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, 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 instance how
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 uptimes
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, stan wrote:
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 04:05:37PM -0500,
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 the
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. This is
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 the
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 For instance
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 environment in
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:
sigh 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
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 from any
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 security
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 signal
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 switch?
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?
--
They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety
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?
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 security
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 announcement of
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 [pull
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 some of
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't
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 apt-get
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't
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;eenough for em. And it gets apt-get dist-upgraded
pretty much every weekday morning.
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 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
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 need to
stan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:15:02AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
sigh 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
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
machines
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
* 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:
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. However,
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 environment in it?
* 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 security
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 figure
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 :stability
39 matches
Mail list logo
