On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 00:28:04 -0400, Chuck Peters wrote: > > One of our techs wants to use freeradius on a production box, but now that > > it has been dropped from woody I would rather use something else. > > Looking at > http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html#radiusd-freeradius > the one problematic bug can be worked around by compiling from source - you > could consider having both testing and unstable in the box's sources.list, > pinning it to testing, but using freeradius from unstable.
I don't like the idea of doing that on production boxes running multiple services becuase it seems likely that some security update will cause a cascade of upgrades or break something. Most of the time unstable stuff works fine, but sometimes it bites you in the ass. Maybe if we setup a seperate box running not much other than the freeraduis it could be ok. At http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=142217&repeatmerged=yes it says "radiusd-freeradius is too buggy. This is a grave bug, by Policy s2.1.2. Maybe it will be ready for Woody+1." What does the Woody+1 mean, a minor release/update to woody or does it mean sid? Thanks, Chuck > > Ray > -- > People think I'm a nice guy, and the fact is that I'm a scheming, conniving > bastard who doesn't care for any hurt feelings or lost hours of work if it > just results in what I consider to be a better system. > Linus Torvalds on the linux-kernel list > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
