On 25-Sep-97 Pete Harlan wrote: >> For the most part, it means "non-changing". While it would be nice to >> fix each package with a problem, doing so always runs the risk of breaking >> other packages on the system. Verifying the integrity of the system as a > >Perhaps this has been taken a little too much to heart; I keep >updating my system thinking one or two packages must have had some >fixes (security being my major concern), but nothing's changed. It's >better than having a lot of minor Foo-23.deb --> Foo-24.deb updates, >but gives the impression that "stable" means "abandoned". > >E.g. bash-2.0, which was found to be buggy almost immediately >(granted, not with a security issue, but it broke other packages). >Under 1.1 and 1.2 these things were fixed right away, which led me to >think that security issues would be address equally quickly; 1.3.1 >makes a person wonder.
I think these things ARE being fixed but the fixes are being compiled against libc6 and the new packages are going into unstable. At this point, you are probably closer to the truth than you know when you call 1.3 "abandoned". It is actually libc5 that is abandoned. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
