Quoting Shlomi Fish, from the post of Sun, 17 Nov: > > That is actually a good thing for servers. It means that security > > upgrades are much less likely to break something, which in turn means > > that you are much more confident applying them. The only problem I am > > aware of is false positives when doing vulnerability scans of the machine. > > I don't think it is a good thing, because these patches are hard to > maintain separately, and often the maintainer of the package cannot > maintain all previous versions. >
Shlomi, with all due respect, your system administration experiance is not as rich and long as Shachar's and mine. we both see the way that Debian does this as the preferable one, and respect very much their brave decision to do the hard thing (backport fixes) rather than taking risks with new versions. Debian policies for maintaining the distro that way were discussed long and hard by dozens and hundreds of developers and users, and you learn to see how well it all works after a few months of operation. I personally can't go bac, and Shachar's recent brush with MDK sent him looking for Debian again :) > > as far as I understood, they are the only ones that are LSB complient. > > I think you are wrong here. According to this: > http://www.freestandards.org/news.php?id=35 > > Mandrake, RH and S.u.s.e are the ones that were certified LSB-compliant, > so I guess Debian will have to follow suit. note the LSB certification costs money, and Debian is a minimum-budget volunteer operation. they do religiously keep to the FHS, and I'm not sure the LSB requires that. certified or not, I doubt Debian are ignoring the LSB, and are probably trying to stay compatible, either way. :wq -- One size fits all Ira Abramov http://ira.abramov.org/email/ This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
msg00852/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
