On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 12:21:44PM +0200, Joris Mocka wrote: > Ethan Benson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Johan Segernäs wrote: > > > And no, i wouldn't use woody on a firewall, it's to many packet-updates > > > all > > > the time, takes > > > to much time to keep track of everything imho. > > > > woody also does not get security updates, in fact it can take a very > > long time for security related updates to get into woody since its > > almost entirely managed by a script. unstable simply gets new > > versions of a package installed immediatly so any security fixes are > > in unstable as soon as they are packaged. that does NOT guarentee they > > will make it into woody any time soon though. > > > > the `testing' distribution (now woody) is the least secure branch you > > can run. > > ...this is a thing where i can't agree, in the last 6 month, all > security-fixes were as soon implemented as in potato (i have both, so > i'd compared). e.g. bind probs, man-db probs for mention a few. but i > have also the security-link in my sources.list even under woody, maybe > this is the reason why it works. > What is the security link?
Mark.
