On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 12:09:10PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > There are security updates on wheezy-backports, but I assume that you mean > that: if 1) we do not add wheezy-backports to /etc/apt/sources.list and 2) if > there is a security update, then it will be less straightforward for our users > to benefit from it. > > One solution would be to add wheezy-backports to /etc/apt/sources.list. By > default, it will never cause the installation of backports on the system > unless > the administrator specifically requests it.
Considering the con (no security upgrades for cloud-init), and considering backports are not installed by default, you're right, I think having wheezy-backports by default would be acceptable and justified by the need of having cloud-init. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . [email protected] . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
